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).

New blog.

The Conservative Social Worker.

My rebuttal to Amanda Woolsten, Rachel West, Deona Hooper & Tricia Fronek.

 Part 1: Tricia Fronek

I'm currently a graduate candidate in a MSW program. I've read about whether or not a conservative can function within the boundaries of social work, its political atmosphere and its infrastructure, and the responses were leaning towards a no.

Tricia Fronek, the administrator of the blog Social Work, Social Work, brought me attention to Deona Hooper's article which led to the thoughts of Amanda Woolsten and Rachel West. The last two being the biggest offenders.

All three give their thoughts on conservatives in social work (and why they do not support conservative thought) when expressing their views on the  "conservative v liberal" debate in the helping field.

Fronek writes -

"Can a social worker hold conservative views? Well I suppose they can but I think the question should be can a social worker continue to do so if they are practising social work well?"

And interesting thought. Fronek implies that if one holds conservative views one can be in the field, but since conservative thought does not practice "critical reflection," which she says is "real reflection," it impedes the person from being an exceptional social worker. As she continues -

"I don’t necessarily mean empathy with the people we see every day– essential but not the point. I mean the practising of social work. I am talking about critical reflection – real critical reflection. Fook and Gardner describe it well in their book   – it is not simply about understanding our clients’ internal struggles and the interpersonal interactions between ourselves and our clients. Critical reflection also demands attention to structural factors that affect individuals and communities and brutal self-examination.

Now, I have not read Fook & Gardner's book - I will, by my own admission, if it isn't assigned to me. If what Fronek writes is accurate from the the book, I fail to see how that would make conservatives incapable of being a social worker let alone excelling in their given population. The burnout rate of a social worker is rather high, or so I've heard, and burnout is mostly due to the emotional stress the field brings.

From what I've gather, once a social worker gets to know the system he's working with, be it the welfare system, adoption services, school systems, health care systems etc., it does not matter what his politics are. There is no study or valid anecdote that says conservatives are incapable of learning a given system and working with a given population to access benefits and resources. It's basically a librarian for the social services. One can do the job with proper training and experience.

I am not sure what "brutal self-examination" means unless it means acknowledging one's "privilege." If it means to feel endlessly sorry for one's client and to work on their behalf, without question, then Fronek has a good point. To always be on the client's side to get them benefits & resources would execute my own intelligence and standard. But, there's one thing: To advocate on behalf of a client by holding conservative views does not mean the social worker is destroying the goal of his field.

I'm against abortion and if I so happen to work at a crisis center, or in health care, the option of abortion would be on the table. This confession would be a shock given my beliefs, but I'd always frame the situation as this: Is the embryo a living thing or is it "goo"? Is the right of the embryo a "voice that does not have a voice"? Given that the helping field is all about standing up for those that do not have a voice, the option to have an abortion is there - I just won't advocate for an abortion since that's up to the female and to implant the idea of a living "thing" in her mind is my duty - but I will frame it in a way where the choice to have one is not one done out of a "so what?" mentality. I refuse to be the parent with the credit card to which the teenager seeks it out for personal use. In many ways I am practicing the philosophy Yale's CLAY.

If my client chooses to get an abortion I cannot stop her. I will give her the resources and pathway to a clinic that offers abortion services that has a high success rate despite the sadness that comes to my heart. Of course, this does not mean I won't fight against the federal funding of abortion clinics.

Fronek states the following about the book -

"If we really practise critical reflection well, we constantly challenge our own beliefs so they don’t interfere with our work by imposing our prejudices on others. If we are honest with ourselves things change – for us and our clients. The down side is we can be uncomfortable a lot of the time."

The feels. I mean, this is utter baloney because it's based on pure conjecture.

If we use abortion as the topic: A pro-abortion child & family social worker will not see any issue with advocating for abortions, in fact, that same social worker will have an issue with someone advocating for a pro-life stance.

I also do not completely understand when she writes "If we are honest with ourselves things change – for us and our clients." I take these are Fronek's own interpretation of the book since it wasn't quoted. If she's implying that once a social worker learns the case and background of their clients, once they challenge their (conservative) beliefs, they'd push aside their beliefs and be "Team Client" - whatever they need, they'll get. If so, this is a horrible way of doing social work.

"Let’s assume for a moment that I truly believe that unemployed people don’t work because they are lazy. If they took personal responsibility and got off their butts they would get a job – a belief shared by my family and my community. Ok let’s take it a step further. Imagine I approach my unemployed clients with this belief (consciously or unconsciously)"

Let's stop here for a moment. Fronek is painting in inaccurate broad strokes; also so what if she has family members who think this way (which is a common tactic of a modern mind - "Well, my community thinks this way but I think another so it must be them!"). They aren't entirely wrong.

"I guarantee you no change will happen and I would more than likely do harm by cementing fixed notions of privilege and disadvantage. If I acknowledge and challenge my beliefs and recognise any assumptions in those beliefs or indeed my own position in society, I might be open to hearing (and I mean hearing) about intergenerational poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation, lack of education, caring for a child with a disability or even dyslexia or depression (the list goes on)…and their interaction together."

(A) You are only committing more harm if the client is not open to any possible motivational flaws. (B) You are only being ignorant if the economy does not produce more jobs than the current number of those in unemployment.
(C) If we bring in part-time jobs or even full-time jobs at Burger Kind and whatnot, those jobs aren't meant to raise a family let alone make one financially stable.

If one talks about "intergenerational poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation, lack of education" they better have an understanding, an intellectual one which is based on economic, historic and political bases, that causes such things. I do not see social exclusion being a main prohibition of entering the work force. This isn't the Jim Crow days, though many truly believe it still is  (see: Deona Hooper). I'm also a bit lost when she mentions a "lack of education." Does she mean no GED? Does she mean no college diploma? It's a loaded point, too vague to dig into effectively. But she has the feels. She comes to a person caring for a disabled person, to which I give a sigh of relief. She at least has a legitimate point now. Dyslexia? Okay, what about it? Depression? Fair enough.

So within he own list, I can only see two that can be legit reasons for unemployment. If Fronek's mission to say that those who think unemployment is due to laziness, and therefore such a group unfairly creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment, I say Get. Over. Yourself.

If those who say social services should be cancelled because of the lazy then she'd have a stronger cause for doubting the ability of a conservative social worker. The thing is, many do not advocate for this. Again, Fronek paints in a very wide brush, easily setting up her own sentiments to triumph while doing a disservice, the irony, to the opposition.

(In my personal experience, those that were unemployed had one of these two things. Their field not having enough jobs or personal laziness. I've met more moochers than people genuinely searching, yet failing, for a job due to those things she has listed. The only people I know that genuinely could not hold a job were the mentally ill aka many of the homeless in my city.)

"If I truly hear I would be forced to acknowledge that these stories do not quite fit with concepts of laziness as the root cause or potential cure. Recognising this mismatch could be very uncomfortable for me and perhaps challenge the core of my own socialisation and dearest held beliefs. Only then can the real work can begin – with my client and on myself."

Oh please, Fronek, stop with the "if I can only open my eyes and my heart, so freakin' wide, then I'd truly understand the plight of my clients" talk. I get the feeling that social worker like Fronek take themselves way too seriously and think of themselves as some sort of savior. Her sentiments, again, plays off belief that the opposition fails to recognize the various reasons for unemployment. Like those who say unemployment is solely due to laziness, Fronek commits the same ignorant and lazy mistake - not delving into any layers.

"Our practice frameworks encompass knowledge and draw on theory and research (and I don’t mean the products of think tanks). It is often difficult to distinguish between independent information and ideologically driven beliefs (see the Point of Inquiry podcast with Gabriel Sherman for an interesting example). By practising social work, we are constantly challenged to consider alternative perspectives especially when the realities of what we see and hear do not fit with current approaches, beliefs, ideologies or politics. We live with uncertainty in a world that is far from black and white."

First, what's wrong with theories and research from think tanks? Yes, they can be partisan, but the real dirt is the methodology and the premise. I can only assume that by "think tanks" she means right-wing think tanks. Second, what does non-think tanks knowledge, theory and research have over those that are produced by think tanks? I'm a newbie to the social work world, but I can bet that many of the knowledge, theories and research done by academia tend to lean one way: In favor of leftist thought. I may be knew, but I am not naive nor am I a sucker.

As an example of a foggy resource, she links Point of Inquiry, whose missions is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values." I'm not sure if Fronek is religious, but as a religious person I don't see much of a problem because I'd never use it as a legit source, may be a third-tier source, but never a source of authority. If I use a similar source, I'd feed off the pundit and later build off whatever ideas with sources that may or may not uphold their views. In fact I don't know any social worker who uses Point of Inquiry as a resource.

I also don't believe that social workers are "are constantly challenged to consider alternative perspectives especially when the realities of what we see and hear do not fit with current approaches, beliefs, ideologies or politics." If this were true than conservative thought wouldn't be looked at with scorn and disdain by fellow social workers. If anything, social work seems more than happy to chug along its current (leftist) narratives.

"As Hooper pointed out, all people do not start out on an equal footing. Inequality and social problems are disturbing realities in the OECD countries where political environments are conservative and pay homage to the cult of individual responsibility as the sole cause and solution to all complex problems. This approach leaves a whole lot out and has little hope in alleviating the problems people face."

Fronek, again, goes off into a straw man when she states that the levels of inequality are "disturbing" when viewing conservative environments (never defined) who "pay homage to to the cult of individual responsibility as the sole cause and solution to all complex problems." I can only guess she means Australia or the USA since she fails to list examples of such environments given by Hooper. As with her false positioning against the "unemployment is due to laziness" she writes things that are too vague, rendering itself almost meaningless. We're just suppose to take them at face value because OH MY GOD THE INJUSTICE OF SELF-RESPONSIBILITY!

"Wilkinson and Pickett’s research shows that these approaches contribute to inequality and make things worse for everyone. Marston, McDonald and Bryson point out who really benefits from the ways welfare is delivered – or not. Interestingly it is not the people that first come to mind."

The great irony about linking a UK social science site devoted to economic "equality" is that Western Europe is all on the bandwagon for a socialized government. Has she read the book she listed, "Welfare and the State: Who benefits?" I haven't but I will now. It also seems that she's working off the narrative that conservatives think the welfare state is bad and that it should be abolished - or something like that.

Overall, listing studies and books does not help Fronek. I do not believe she has read most of the books and studies she has listed. 

"When it comes to politics is there any robust research that shows a sole focus on individualism contributes positively to all people rather than simply the privileged minority at the top of the class ladder?

Another false premise. Individualism -- in government form? In collective thinking? C'mon Fronek, fucking define you terms for once. Can we count inventors being an example for the individual than for the collective? By creating a product or even a business they can employ, inspire and lift out the poor to a greater economic bracket. She creates the false narrative of the "evil, greedy 1%."

"We are constantly told it does but where is the evidence that supports the claim? Sure we have a value-based profession but so do all professions – just look at anybody’s codes of ethics. But we do not blindly accept values whether they are professional or personal. We challenge and deconstruct these too.

Where is the evidence that it doesn't? She gives a link to the OEDC but so what. Without noting a particular study I refuse to dig in that. If she wants to propose a certain premise then it's on her to given the opposition the resources that backs up her claims.

It is a pathetic tactic by the left - and yes, they are the left - to play the "where's the evidence card" while showcasing their own shoddy studies. Where's the evidence that a collective government helps the poor more? Fronek acts like Western Civilization is a sad collection of societies.

Fronek's thinking is lazy, vague and just plain porous. And, as I suspected, the magical word: deconstruct. The goal of deconstruction to pick apart a supposed social structure because it it believed to create inequality (as if that was innately bad) and psychological harm (as if an individual needs to be babied). Fronek again attributes traits and actions to social workers that I do not see.

As she writes -

"Social work values moisten the soil so we can dig into people’s lives without doing harm and critical reflection sharply spotlights our own assumptions. Knowledge and evidence works hand in hand with values and self-knowledge to ensure we practise social work well."

 She calls upon this "critical reflection" once again which challenges a social worker's assumptions (conservatives only!), while whatever research further perpetuates an unfair world in which the (liberal) social worker can pick up their sword and cry for justice. She appeals to "knowledge and evidence" yet she never states statistics or theories (besides "critical reflection") as if a non-liberal social worker is incapable of doing so. The last time I heard social work, as an academic discipline, wasn't known for its social science theories. It's a field that build off of sociology, psychology and sometimes off of (selective) history and rarely calls in philosophy.

Next up: Part 2 - Deona Hooper.

New link added.

28 Sherman was added.

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

American Thinker: Hijacked or Editors actively Humping Trump

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

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

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

All of these are met with the same 404 message.

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

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

How The Left Abuses "Equal Opportunity."

2015 was a very interesting year for Leftists and their lackeys. It was filled with victories and incidences where The Left's juvenile and pathetic emotionally and psychological instability was on full display. Their argumentation was greatly to be desired. Given the subject head I will brief two main milestones of The Left.

(1) June 16, 2015. Obergefell vs Hodges.

People of the same sex can now be issued a civil marriage license.

(2) December 3, 2015. Women are allowed to enter combat/infantry MOS's.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter issues policy that forces all branches to allow women to serve in direct combat roles.

Both of these milestones were under the reasoning of "equal opportunity." (1) is pure bullshit because people with same-sex attraction could already get married, that is to the opposite sex which was the original sex requirement. (2) is where I think discrimination should be allowed to prevail. Men and women are innately different - different brains, difference in strength and agility, difference in subject aptitude. There is no animosity towards women who want to join the military in the US; there is animosity towards the once tried & true tradition of allowing only men to serve in direct combat roles.

What bothers me greatly is the attitude towards those who disagree with both decisions.

"It's the same thing with blacks when they weren't allowed to serve!"
"Brown v. Education!"
"In ten years from now it'll be normal for a female to walk into recruiter's station and sign for an infantry role. It'll be no big deal."
"Change always happen. In order for us to survive we must embrace change and there's nothing you can do about it."
"Deal with it."

These are the usual suspects in terms of comebacks when met with opposition. How is it fair that non-"progressive" policies and traditions can be changed and yet somehow "progressive" policy cannot? If all things are treated equal, that there are no grand differences, then what's the point if even caring?

"Meh. So what? I don't see a big deal."

This is the mentality of smug "progressives." Of course many will deny such a label, as they do, and in the ironic fashion embrace "I am nothing."

When so-called progressives get their way, those that disagree do have to deal with it. In the leftists mindset, as years past and as their policies are set in stone due to time, the future that they want becomes to the norm. I say why should it be the norm? If they worked tirelessly to change the laws they disagree with, why can't those that oppose with the changes work tirelessly as well to reset what has been changed? I say strike down Obergefell v. Hodges. I say strike down Ashton Carter's decision. The remaining same-sex licenses shall expire when either party divorces or perishes. The women in combat roles should either be assigned a different MOS or they should be the last of their kind, allowing no further participation of females.

I think so-called progressives have a narrow view of change. "Change" is their way replacing the old. But change can also be the old replacing the new. People will complain that it's going back to the "old days." I say so what. Yes and no. Yes because it is resetting the clock and no because it changes the current policy and norm.

Liberalism & leftists aren't diverse. Conservatism is.

Here's an interesting article on American Thinker about the current slate of POTUS candidates for 2016.

The Republican presidential debate process makes clear the true diversity of conservatism.  When the left talks of "diversity," it means diversity of identity: blacks speaking for blacks, women speaking for women, Hispanics speaking for Hispanics.  But even here, the left is not diverse at all. 

Look at everyone who has been considered at one time or another during this campaign season to have been a serious potential candidate for the Democrat nomination: Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Kerry.  All four Democrats are very rich (Socialist Sanders is simply well off), and all five of these folks have spent their whole adult lives "working" in politics or law.  All five also live in the hothouse environment of the Beltway, where no one drills for oil or grows crops or builds trucks.

The contrast with the Republican field is stark.  At the last Republican debate, half of the candidates were women or members of minority groups.  Two of the eight were physicians; two of the eight were business executives; and five of the eight – Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Fiorina – came from very humble backgrounds.  These eight also live in places scattered around the nation – Florida, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia.

The real difference in diversity, however, is in the diversity of ideas and policies.  The rhetoric of Hillary and Bernie is virtually identical, and both are saying exactly the same things that the left was saying twenty years ago.  There is never any serious reflection that what has been tried and failed ought to be modified or even rejected.  The dull, gray, silly theories of socialism are still clung to reflexively by the left.

The author of the article goes on into the policies and how conservatism is the saving grace of American politics and the nation. Overall, a decent read that brings up valid points that "diversity" when talked about on the DNC/leftist side is only skin deep. As an ideology they're lock step.

Heritage Foundation's talk on same-sex "marriage" ruling.

The first handful of comments of the video -

"People are tired of you. Go away!" That's the sentimentality I get when same-sex "marriage" supporters gloat on youtube.

A separate recording of Carrie Severino's talk. Here are the comments as of 7/25/15 -

Trent, the lone wolf of sanity in an insane combox.

I agree with Robert Oscar Lopez

When gay "marriage" is ruled as legal this June (because it will come) then the ship of conservatism will have met an iceberg. It isn't exactly the Kraken or The Beast, but it will be a vital blow. There will be time to abandon ship and to gather any goods that can be carried. Conservatives in general - of all stripes - will be seen as "the other" and will be pushed to the fringes of society. It may not happen in a few years, but give it a decade's time. It'll be like living in Sweden.

As poster "Sam_Handwich" (gay "marriage" advocate) puts it -

People like Handwich aren't reasonable. They are bitter. They are narrow minded and they want revenge. Not because they were actually physically or verbally abused, not because they were treated like the Jewish in Hitler's Germany, but because they are victims of modernity where their sexuality (not liking the opposite sex exclusively, whether their bi or 'gay') has rendered their esteem rather low growing up and, finding a narrative that helps them feel indignant (enter LGBT activists and the derangement that comes with such an infliction) have produced a person who grows up to think society owes them something; in their minds they think of themselves as Jewish Holocaust survivors like blacks constantly refer back to American slavery and their pride in their "blackness."

I'll say this, when you meet a Swede who so happens to be a homosexual and even he has insecurities about his sexuality and feels "oppressed" then that would be a hint that so-called "progress" doesn't naturally cultivate sound individuals in the aspects that it wants it to be sound, and it also would be a HUGE hint that having romantic/sexual feelings towards your sex isn't so much 'normal.' When you grow up feeling"different" (and in this case one is actually different)  please don't take that as as a sign of "well society is just plain bigoted and hateful" and grow to be some run-of-the-mill gay "rights" advocate. Heck, I would know. One of my own family remembers, when he started to embrace is homosexuality, became one of these just under six months.

Some *comments from the ROL article -

This is a similar strawman when someone quoted a judge saying, and I paraphrase, "Heterosexual get drunk, have sex and have kids out of wedlock and have domestic violence, yet they're given the right to marry. Homosexuals are then painted as some evil group where they're punished and don't have the right to marry." The poster then tried to add on "he was appointed by Ronald Reagan." That's basically the same poor-ass tactic like saying "homosexual acts were never condemned in the Bible so it makes it totally okay!." Or it's similar to saying "[insert some media favorite non-"progressive"] said legalizing marijuana and universal health care was the right thing to so there! Even so-and-so supports it, now what?"

Let's move on.

I'm sensing an inferiority complex with "DGCJ." He then assumes that straight men adore George W. Bush. Well, if you're straight, don't think gay "marriage" should be legalized and, if so, are not equal to actual marriage (between a man and woman) then your hero must be Little W. I was waiting for the "Fox News" being pulled and "white men" card as well. It never came.

Here's a funny.

This is in the same vain as "I cannot wait for you old white people to die so your ideals can wither away" card, or playing the "become extinct like the dinosaurs" card. I mean, the only call to life from social "progressives" that I'm aware of is being anti-war (they sometimes peak their head out for the death penalty talk). All else? Abortion is practically an oxymoron to life. Encourage/celebrating same-sex relationships without much plans for kids (without in vitro and adoption they can't 'have' any) is backwards. Encouraging "my body no kids" for women is also backwards (some say that they don't have "motherly instincts" in order to not have kids). Propping up the idea that a women doesn't need a man in a sense that serial monogamy and serial relationships makes a "strong, independent and courageous" woman is downright insane. So I don't see life from these types of people (though they are abnormally into themselves and #YOLO, or some sort of variant of that). In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, they don't call for defense of life either (not that they would know how to handle a handgun, or on a more extreme case support a strong military).

Being against interracial marriage is the same as being against same-sex marriage. Of course. Genius observation.

Then there's that awkward exchange of words of 'shooting' your own people aka blue on blue.

"Guest" brings up a good point. Like "DGCJ," Kara has an odd view of how conservatives will react - granted fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church will go out in public and do their usually thing. I remember being on American Thinker, reading a past article about the writer's contact with the non-religious and their views on Romney (they believed if he were to be elected the country would turn into a theocracy) with some LGBT Gestapo chiming in. The day after the election a few more chimed and were gloating that they won. That's what the LGBT Gestapo internet branch does when things rule in their favor: Gloat. I then confronted about it and one said to me "Well, of course! Why shouldn't we!" Then, on another article, on another site, when Prop 8. was struck down in CA a homosexual said to me "Me and my friends will be dancing in the street!"

In "MarkOH" case there is no activist judge; it's all projection since, in his mind, any judge not ruling in favor of (actual) marriage is labeled an "activist judge." Now, he may have a point. But then I strictly remember a federal judge basically vetoing the Alabama marriage ban leaving open the ruling of same-sex "marriage." So no, MarkOH doesn't really have a point. The people of Alabama had no say on this. It happened last year as well, but in the state of Virginia. Yes, it took just one judge.

Speaking of "frothing at the mouth" check this video out:

and this article. How about the Oregon *bakery that did not want to make a same-sex "wedding" cake or the photographer who refused to partake in a gay "wedding"? The Oregon bakery was initially closed due to mob tactics by the LGBT Gestapo (IRL) and the photographer was taken to the Supreme Court. Add in the recent **Indiana pizza parlor, Memories Pizza, being closed down due to the very same thing: Refusing to serve a same-sex "wedding."All three did not refuse their services to non-straight people in event that weren't related to same-sex "weddings."

*Interesting yelp reviews.
** Pizzeria yelp reviews.

(A good percent of the 1 star reviews, at the time of each incidents - bakery in mid 2013 and pizza parlor the first week of April 2015 - try to mask their disagreement of "no service to gay 'weddings'" as "bad food, bad service." It's the messed up, cowardly modern way of cutting down something while masking its true intentions. It accomplishes one thing: To deter potential customers which leads to the potential of less profit. Basically: Close this b*tch down. They will smugly add in "It's economics, honey!" People who say that probably don't even understand microeconomics. When it comes to the pizzeria, apparently Walkerton, Indiana, population of about 2, 400, is a tourist magnet to those in California. Who would have known?)  

I am not a sociologist, but I can confidently say that when marriage "equality" becomes the law of the land come June a good majority of traditional conservatives won't be "frothing at the mouth," though Kara and the liked-minded would love such a thing to happen (it would be the cherry on their 'wedding' cake, the diamond on that engagement ring). Social "progressives" think very highly of themselves - they think they're "tolerant" and "open minded" people; they are anything but. They intimidate. They flood articles to spout their strawman arguments and circular logic.They think of their opponents (conservatives of any stripe) in archetypes and caricatures. They play off this boxy idea of their opponents to fuel their bitterness, their argument and their rage.


UPDATE: At around 4PM I rechecked the article. I posted around noon that by midnight ROL's page would have at least 500+ comments (it had about 300 when I arrived). It's not even 6PM where I live and it has over 1,000+. I totally underestimated the LGBT Gestapo.

Modernity & art. And an atheist & ex-Republican named Mike.

Rated PG-13 for crude language.

In one of Roger Kimaball's articles he mentions George Orwell commenting on artists (his thoughts were written in the 1940s according to Kimaball) -

I think they still hold today.

I'll just concentrate on the "Just pronounce the magic world 'Art,' and everything is O.K. Over on Breitbart.com this enthralling (I'm being facetious) exchange of words took place a few days ago -

Poster GreenLantern has many good (and true) points. If one is remotely familiar with how producing a movie works, Mr. Lantern isn't typing away just to type away. Mike's "It's called art," is a good example of vacuous emotive bullshit.

How come Mike's appeal to "art" sounds so much like every other modern day appeal to the arts? It's like 100 years from now books (maybe turned into e-books) will be non-existent or museums holding exhibitions will be gone in Mike's mind.

It's not like I'm a anti-art (if you knew about my interests you'd think "Da f-ck? How are you a traditionalist?") or think black & white films are boring, or think "real" films (the ones that show up at Cannes, Sundance, TIFF, Venice etc.) are a waste of time.

But Mike wasn't done.

and

and

and

According to his posts, supposedly Mike was a Marine AND a Republican back in the day. How convenient. I guess that makes his comments even more "legit."

Now I'm aware that there are atheists who serve in our military, so I'm not ignorant of such a demographic being present in a branch that might otherwise seem full of Christians - whatever sect. I never served in the military (though I wish I had) so I don't know if the all the "You're going to hell" talk is present to any atheist who broadcasts his thoughts on religion; I don't know what is talked about in the barracks. Now was the man a Republican? I am not sure if that is true. The thing that seems true is that he's an atheist (Gnu), a non-believer.

 I don't have anything personal against atheists -- I'm just highlighting what clearly shows an atheist going out of his way (starting an off-topic post) to be an an out right ass on an article that has nothing to with religion, let alone Christianity. It would be like me going on a HuffPo article about educational protests in Colorado, posting how people who think abortion is a "right" are evil sons-of-a-bitches. I don't believe such a thing nor would I do such a thing, let alone troll such a website.

I take the "ex-Republican" with a grain of salt because of this comment -

Mike also has some race issue (not that race issue) -

I don't know how old Mike is, but I figure most of his military superiors were white during the time of his service.

The man goes on, in other posts, talking about how the Indians (Native Americans) got screwed over with their land, how tough it is to be a black person (I think Mike is white, at least that's what he wrote before) and that America only protects white males. Then is another post he voices how America is a hypocritical country saying - I dunno, can't really remember - that the country will only live up to its true potential by adopting some egalitarian mindset. This is coming from a person who said he served in the Marines, served as a cop for 20+ yrs and was Republican at some point in his life.

Mike, you could've had me fooled for something else.

Here's something that I've noticed amongst lefties -

They [lefties], when the timing is right, tend to say something along the same lines -- that the world is tired of conservatives supposed close mindedness, its bigotry and hatred, its "baggage" causing progress in society to halt or retard etc. That they [conservatives] are that type of person that no one wants to talk to at a party because of supposedly antiquated views of [insert political issue or social topic].

In other words its the "no one likes you" school yard card. It's pure intimidation used to make the receiver into take an (unfair) guilt trip.

"My gosh, we are mean and backwards, and everything the media and trolls (like Mike) say we are. We are so sorry. Please forgive us."

Kinda like how race baiters want America, somehow - don't know how, to pay for its own "original sin" -- slavery. And whatever racism, sexism, gender-injustice, oil seeking injustice that exists America has got to pay for it. I don't know how, but somehow the country has to set things "right."

If the world can't stand you, then I guess the world is right, right? If foreign media portrays conservatives and the GOP as some wacko right-wing fanatic group then it's true, right?

(I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an independent voter, though back in the day I considered myself a Democrat. I am fully aware that Mike's supposed past history is symmetric to mine, but I know I'm telling the truth about my past. As for Mike ... I don't know.)

I'll say this: Someone who is a traditionalist is very bizarre to most of the (Western) world, especially Europe. An American libertarian is, as I learned, quite a rare bird in world politics. I'll break this oddness rareness down.

From the PBS site, as the late Ronald Reagan said -

January 11, 1989 -- farewell address to the nation

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." 

• America is seen as the last shining light to the world. I agree. If America tanks the world is screwed.
• American politics is seen as more conservative, as a whole, when compared to Western Europe. Go ask comedian/actor Russell Brand. The 2nd amendment about guns? The Brits think we're nuts.
• Social conservatives are seen as *weird mother fuckers to most of the world. What, no Two Girls One Cup? (No link, you sick bastard.) Why you be hatin'? They ain't hurtin' anyone.
• Middle America is more (socially) conservative than, say, Western Europe & the coasts. It's a place seen filled with weird mother fuckers.
• "The rest of the world can't stand you." The you refers to conservatives (with all the compliments that Mike attributed).
• An American conservative is rare bird in the world.

Snuff that light out. Mike would like that. In fact, Mike admits that the country's potential is in some egalitarian Utopia. A "new" light is made because the "old" light just doesn't cut it, but the details are quite vague. Just don't demand a detailed answer from Mike.

And here's another thing I've noticed: There are far more leftie trolls on conservative sites than conservative trolls on non-conservative sites. Actually, I can't really recall a conservative acting like a troll on sites dominated by the liberal view. I wish I did, I wished I experienced something like Mike, but a conservative one, because then I can say "well this one time a self-proclaimed conservative on Jezebel .... "

What I can say is that posters like Mike, are often times condescending. Wait, that should be Condescending. Bold. Capitalized. Bitter as well - oh the bitterness. It's like they're confessing their deepest angst and the posters reading should be saint like in receiving the slanders and jabs, thought the patience shown by some posters is more than impressive.

Then this long rant (the article was about a law supporting building rooms specifically for beast feeding in airports - apparently some of the posters didn't like the idea, so Mike had his say) -

So what we have here is a Marine turned cop, for 20 years, who is an ex-Republican, yet he talks like a modern day Kool-Aid drinking leftie. Seriously, how on earth did he survive his 4 years in the Marines let alone become a cop all the while thinking and believing the things he does?

A part of me wants to believe his what he types, the other just wants to call BS. I did come across a person, claiming that they were an urban Republican that worked in politics, that came across as some conservative poser. When I asked him about his tone (it was clear he didn't like the NASCAR type of people or those in small towns, basically most of America), he proclaimed that didn't like middle American and the South because of the "twang" accents ("If that makes me elitist, then so be it," he said), and that while watching the news overseas that such people were an embarrassment when interviewed.

Rubes aren't liked by the "sophisticated" urban Republican nor the Marine turned cop/ex-Republican who now holds right wing America in immense contempt.

I did have the idiocy to respond to some of his posts, so I'll see how our own discussion goes if he replies back. And I'm an ex-(modern) liberal, otherwise known as a leftie ...

* I don't think middle American is filled with weird mother fuckers due to it being socially conservative.

Ex-atheists and/or liberals seem to garner "fans" / Combox #4

Not fans of say the traditional definition, but "fans" of the "You're an idiot" kind who post snark and "Man, you totally owned him" when a fellow objector decides to point out weaknesses of an argument, and they tend to show up on on select issues.

A good example of this ex-atheist turned believer is ex-lawyer turned science fiction writer John C. Wright.

In my readings and observations the science fiction community is vehemently secular; people who have interests in computer science and coding tend to overlap this community as well. It's a community that is seemingly bright, and that's a good thing. No doubt that in his conversion from staunch atheist to now practicing Catholic, Wright has hurt some hearts and made a handful of people feel betrayed. I'm talking about the atheists and the non-conservatives who liked his writings, or at least liked it enough to say "Well that didn't outright suck."

And most of the these detractor enjoy anime. Why is that? It's like the people on tumblr or reddit. The internet is truly wonderful (no, really).

Most particularly are Wright's mini-essays on sexual morality and his criticisms of modernity - or leftism - that garner these bitter souls. They mostly do not come baring a sense of sincere earnest to understand, but are filled with snark. I do not know if their minds have a worthwhile rebuttal since they do not represent it, so I am left to view their snark as nothing more than pure irritation that someone "use to be like them" but now, in their minds, "a tool."

Another ex-atheist turned believer is philosophy professor Edward Feser. In Feser's case it's usually his comments on libertarianism and Gnus aka modern atheists that garner the trolls - at least from the posts that I've come across.

Now ex-Catholics turned non-believer or ex-conservatives turned (modern day) liberal? Such people don't garner these 'special' posters. Odd, really. It's like the "backwards" people tend to deal with rejection better. I'll speak for myself: When I hear believers turn secular I feel sadness in my heart. When I learn a prominent conservative turned (modern day) liberal I do get somewhat upset, but I'm usually eager to hear their reasons why and if I do decide to respond I leave a point-by-point comment and leave it at that. I don't care so much to engage in foolery that is the combox phenomenon filled with (modern day) liberals. As someone who has "been there done that" as an ex-liberal, I'll say confidently that people who are salivating at modernity engage in circular reasoning and BS "move the goal posts" moves.

There must be something in the water that non-conservatives drink. Combox #1

I think comboxes, to an extent, are a good way to gauge a certain group - be it the regulars or the occasional random posters that deny the article.

Depending on the topic, when I visit non-progressive sites & check their combox, the responses are somewhat predictable to almost "All your emotions are obnoxiously retarded." In case you were wondering, I'm not talking about conservative commentators, but the visitors - the "modernists."

Here are some topics that tend to get non-conservatives, whether they be libertarians leaning left or just flat out modern day leftists/progressives out of the woodwork:

- newly formed conservatives
- critical of homosexual "rights"
- critical of women's "rights"
- skeptical of global warming
- critical of libertarian ideals
- anything defending religion from the criticism of the secular/atheistic world view
- critical of Obama (this topic was a "golden calf" to the left, but now it seems their enthusiasm has greatly been reduced)

This shouldn't be a surprise. The topics basically make up the core of the social issues that are very much dear to leftists/modernists/whatever-you-call-them. (I'm an ex-liberal and I'm starting to get confused on what to call non-conservatives.)

There are probably other topics that have slipped my mind, but those six (not including Obama) are the main topics that tend to get the trolls where the combox reaches 150+. I'll just concentrate on the few listed.

The Newly Formed Conservative
Just recently I read an American Thinker (AT) article on being an ex-leftist. I recommend reading it. I read through the combox, not all 700+ comments (which I think is an AT record) - but most - and those that were not in favor of what was written stated the usual remarks:

- "You were never a true leftist." (Really, now?)
- "So you switched from one ideology for another?" (Let me see, you're a 'libertarian.')
- "This is just rhetoric smearing the left." (So you're saying everything was a lie or grossly exaggerated?)
- "Why should it be always a partisan war? There should be compromise!" (Mr. Naive.)
- "Kumbaya." (Okay, this was never actually said, but it's the 'moderate' card that was being played. )
- "I could say the same thing about conservatives." (So you can replace "leftist" with "conservatives for each point?)
- "Both sides have their bad." (No duh.)
- "This is just BS." (In other words: It hits too close to home OR you think the piece is either lying or over exaggerating.)

Even more interesting is that those that formed these critical comments weren't AT regulars. I presume that the article was posted on a site like reddit (actually no, if it were then the combox would be immensely vial and cruel) or people actively googled for similar posts and up popped the AT article. Or maybe the regulars who liked it circulated it gaining it mass traffic. I'm not sure how it gained that much attention.

Critical of Libertarian Ideals
Again, back to AT. I also liked this article. A good percent of the comments, 200+, are very angry libertarians - most of them first time commentators on the site. The writer's follow up article only received 77 comments, less than half of before. Unlike the above article where many of the commentators where regulars, the comments for this article were mostly first timers. How'd they sniff out this article? I guess that some site dedicated to libertarianism tagged it on its news feed and BOOM, swarming (a technique used to cause high traffic in order to overwhelm the writer and to intimidate regulars).

Critical of Homosexual "Rights"
Way too many to list. There's a few on AT and there's a ton on Breitbart.com. I frequent conservative sites and when something like this s issued I always tend to brace myself. The combox usually gets flooded and a good percent of the comments are "swarmers" - non regulars picking a fight or just mouthing off the cliches I've grown too weary to even care to refute.

On another AT article, which unfortunately I can't seem to find it, not about anything homosexual related, but on Romney's potential to win the 2012 POTUS race, the day after the election I ventured back to it. Like clockwork two pro-homosexual "marriage" advocates started sneering that "they won." Of course this was the same, amongst many other usual gloats, when it came to articles relaying news of same-sex "marriage" becoming law making conservative sites. I distinctly remember one poster saying "My friends and I will dance in the streets!" when DOMA was struck down. This was troll on a conservative site.

And there's this piece of work: 950+ comments on a site that most articles don't get 20. 950+ ... I repeat 950+. And what was the topic you wonder? A rebuttal to an atheistic online comic. I figured it was posted on the comic's Facebook page (it was, I checked) therefore all the followers of the FB page pursued it. Who coined the label "Gnu Atheists"? Whoever it was, good job, cause I like it.

When I venture to HuffPo or DailyKos or Democratic Underground, the chances of me crossing conservatives are few and far between. They're like a rare (fictional) bird - think of Kevin from UP:

Why so few sighting? I don't know. I'll just say that non-conservatives have an anger in them that resembles the tantrum of a 6 yr old, therefore leading them to hunt down any articles - or even keep a list of sites to regularly check up on - that are critical of their precious social issues/causes. They're one bitter angry and irritated group. Meow! 

And when I do cross a conservative their appeal is generally harmless - benign and somewhat squishy, if that makes any sense. They're probably quoting a Bible verse that gets all the angry non-religious riled up. If not they're very "matter of fact", so much so that their tone resembles a history teacher reading from the pulpit.


So here's my round up:
- left leaning libertarians
- self-righteous & smug LGBTAONQPYW people
- angry feminists
- condescending atheists

Is it safe to say that these are "modernists"? I think so. Modernists are very angry people. Why is this? The whole "conservatives are the reason this country is not 'with it'" I don't buy. I've thought about it and it just comes across as an intellectually empty blame. Or as one person (in the 700+ AT article) noted that conservatism has caused problems in his life (though he never went into particulars or gave examples). I also think this person's "confession" is somewhat misguided as well.

One thing's for sure: Conservatism (especially being a social conservative, or supporting traditional mores) is probably the most hated, most mocked and most misunderstood ideology amongst modernists - which, I'd wager, is most of the Western Civilization. It just sets off those "Pissed Me Off I Dare You" buttons.