Caiden Cowger (and Jonathan Krohn)

I'm not sure if he is as loathed as he was three years ago, but apparently in 2012 his youtube channel was making the rounds with youtube progressive and they were a bit pissed off.

What I gather is that Cowger accuses HuffPo, among other left-leaning media/news sites, in trying to take down his youtube channel. I'm not sure if this is anywhere near accurate - maybe the young man jumped to conclusions, but I wouldn't be surprised if HuffPo, or someone from the online media site, did take action again him.

Videos like this, this, this and this were posted in response to Cowger's infamous upload that shared his views on homosexuality. (The video, so far, has received 4, 000 comments, 9, 000+ down votes vs. 400 up votes.) Even The Young Turks, a progressive media/news channel via youtube, jumped on the "Can you believe this kid?" bandwagon. When TYT makes a segment about you you know you've "made it" in the non-left world, at least when it comes to circulated media. In their eyes you're either a crazed wacko religious wingnut akin to an extreme Islamist yelling "Allahu Akbar!" with a bomb strapped to your chest, or you're not progressive enough. Heck, Cowger's video became to popular among the progressive side that he was even mentioned on the Bill Maher Show. Talk about getting the left pissed off.

The kid just isn't liked. Look here and here. It is obvious that Cowger has greatly irritated social "progressives" and the secular types.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who saw the video, disagreed with him, and had a very  negative reaction to it, flagged it and reported it to youtube. Youtube, like all social media sites, is extraordinary liberal, so they too might have felt it violated sit rules and categorized it as "hate speech." I wouldn't be surprised if some LGBT activist pulled the alarm bell and yelled "FIRE!"

Whether or not Cowger will pull a Johnathan Krohn when he turns 18, or in later years, is anyone's guess. If he does I hope he finds his way to conservatism. 

Krohn was held up to a pedestal by a few people on the right when he was a preteen (I don't know why) for espousing conservative views. Later the young Krohn would switch political leanings as he reached his university years. The left began mocking the right for doing such a thing and rightfully so: It was a moronic. At the time Krohn wasn't even 13 when he caught the eyes and hearts of moronic conservatives and Republicans whom then later saw him as the future of conservatism. Why? The kid hadn't even gone through puberty.

When a few FOX News personalities (those that sit around a table and drink coffee while a huge tv is behind, not the anchors) heard that all grownup Krohn was now a liberal college student, they threw him under the bus in a very  non-professional manner. Excellent way to make the right look like idiots, FOX.

(On how he, Krohn, turned into a liberal.)
Krohn: "So I read philosophy and it showed me how wrong I was in my worldviews .... "

Dear Allah. Really, Krohn? You read philosophy and it made you liberal? And you're majoring in film at NYU? You cannot be anymore stereotypical if you weren't already.

Anyways, it seems Cowger is a smart kid;  I think he has balls, if not somewhat reckless on how he broadcasts his views. He's opinionated. He "doesn't" mind own business. I don't know any kid his age who is doing what he's doing: a talk show via youtube espousing (social) conservative views in that manner, all with an understanding of those views - not just blind allegiance (though referring to the Bible when won't help much since social progressive are immensely stubborn).

Like I said, I'm not sure if Cowger will continue on like this - holding the views he currently holds - but if he does, well into his life, then good for him. If he doesn't, I'll just say "You were much wiser when you were a kid." 

Note: I'll be dedicating one more post (or two) abut Cowger later this year. I think, besides the current vitriol he's receiving by the left, he deserves some good words (not the type Krohn got, Dear Allah no). I did a quick google search of him and most of the stuff were negative finds. I don't believe he's known in the conservative blogsphere, or even in general by conservatives, who more savvy with social media. He should be.

Cooties

This is the response relating to the 72nd Golden Globe Awards held on January 11th, 2015. Here is the the complete list of nominees for the category Bomer and Voight were competing in -

No mention of Colin Hanks (son of Tom Hanks) or Alan Cumming (also a homosexual, but not young and handsome as Bomer). The contempt for the right-wing in entertainment isn't necessarily new, just when it's shown it's almost pure vitriol and bitterness.

I must be honest

spotting the bizarre existence of a butthurt progressive -- that fits practically every stereotype you might have of them, but in the most saddest way -- is somewhat gratifying ... because when I push their buttons, direct them a certain way, they mostly crash and burn.

Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.

Liberals/progressives/modernists are more immune to being trolls

I say this because there's at least one of them trolling on a conservative/right-leaning libertarian blog - not every site I stumble upon, though. The conservatives who post on liberal sites are almost non-existence; if they do they're not nearly as assholish - they're quite benign, really.

Take mud _rake for instance. On his (now-defunct) blogger profile, his occupation states "unattached to any monetary-based entity" and the "introduction" warmly says "Dislike bigots and Jesus-pimpers most of all and freely give them dope slaps at every opportunity." I take that he has grandchildren because they're listed under "interests."

Yea, I wonder who was the lucky lady he impregnated and I wonder what's his relationship with his kids (mostly likely the response is "Absolutely amazing," or something like that).

Back in 2011 he asked "Are you a Christian too?" to a diatribe of a post on a blog entitled "The Anti Liberal Zone." It turns out the writer of the blog isn't really religious. The post which mud_rake responded to never even mentioned religion nor Christ. He just immediately thought "wing-nut ... probably Christian." If the writer indeed self-identified as a Christian I don't see much of a problem, but then again I'm biased.

Here are some of mud_rake's responses, devoid of any substance, insight or meaningful rebuttal (though the Christian poster who did engage with him didn't do so well in terms of apologetics) -

AntiLib answers, Am I a Christian?
No, I consider myself more of a warrior-poet

Oh, that's a relief. For a while there I thought that maybe you WERE a Christian but, with all of that 'hate' stuff that you posted, Jesus would weep bloody tears at your anti-Christian rhetoric.

I suppose that none of the other people who commented here are Christians , either, seeing how they all agree to hate other human beings.


Like you, I feel that it's good to hate. Nothing like a good, fat HATE session to purge oneself of all of the nasty toxins that build up within. It's a cathartic experience from time to time.

Do you feel refreshed after a good hate session, AntiLib? Raring to go, bright-eyed, optimistic about tomorrow- new challenges, fertile ground to plow?

I'd urge all of those who comment here to do their own hate-session from time to time. Quite cleansing of body, mind and soul.

The "that's very un-Christian like of you" card. The guy's a Gnu Atheist (check out his wordpress blog). I like it how he emphasized on the HATE session - like a snarky d-bag. "Ohhh boy I caught you now you right-wing nut bags, getting all mad!"

Mud_rake is an atheist so hating, according to him - when it's done by him, isn't so much hypocritical. Also, in italics (emphasized by me) notice the egging on of the hate session. Notice that he never actually tried to defend one perceived misinformation or accusation.

And this one -

Read the book of Revelations? Good joke, Tenth. I gave up reading Fairy Tales a long time ago, about the time I lost my first tooth.

I'll bet, Tenth, that you like the christian hymn, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'Marching as to war.

In your fantasyland I'll bet that you play medieval crusader- fighting to free the Holy Land from the godless Muslims.

Are you, Tenth, a 'soldier of Jesus' in your bubble universe? Do you recall your European history class while in the GED program? Recall the idiotic Wars of Religion? I'm guessing not.

I'll let you go back to your World of Delusion now, Tenth. Remember though, that Jesus taught, "Love one another."

Let me count the idiocy:
1. Calling Christianity (religion in general) "fairy tales."
2. The "wars were justified in the name of religion" card when used by an atheist ... nuff said. (I haven't heard of the hymn before, but I did look it up and I sort a like it.)
3. Calling those who mix their faith and patriotism as a fantasyland. Immensely ironic given how he's of old age and his political leanings let alone his (type of) atheism.
4. He assumes the Christian poster failed to graduate high school, hence the jab at GED holders. He is appealing to the popular notion that the (Christian) religious believers are stupid.
5. Pulls the Wars of Religion card in an attempt to discredit the "mixing faith and patriotism."
6. Appeals to "love one another" when met with a stubborn opposition. How about all the "tolerance" almost universally touted by liberals/progressives/modernists? I'm guessing he forgot.

Then there's poster "RD" - Christian - who doesn't really like the hate being thrown around by some of the Christians -

10th generation...I can't agree with you there.
I don't support homosexuality, and I don't believe in abortion.
I read my Bible every day and the only thing you wrote that was actually in the Bible was to turn the other cheek.

If you want to publicly disassociate yourself with Christianity, go ahead. It is obvious you have no understanding of the Bible anyway. Jesus did not raise up armies. Paul did not overthrow Nero...

I'm taking issue with the tone here. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Do you want to enact change? Run for office, volunteer for a candidate you believe in. But to hide on the internet and spew hatred...it's just cowardly and you guessed it, evil.

So venting on the internet is evil. So setting up a blog, even if it's entitled "anti" is evil. So sharing ones thoughts on the internet and allowing people to comment on any given post is evil. So writing a blog to express ones thoughts, even if it's considered hatred is cowardly. 

I have to agree with the poster "10 generation" when he says "I am tired of all you candy ass Christians saying turn the other cheek. The old timers that came before your old timers would think you're a pussy."

tumblr "progressive logic"

Rated: "PG-13" for crude language.

Here's a somewhat humorous post:
Not supporting gay "marriage" is equal to being homophobic. Uh huh. Yep.

                                                    "People Are Gay. Get Over It. "

Thanks kid with red hair. You are so insightful. And some people don't support same-sex marriage, even if it becomes law. Get Over It.

Okay, okay. I'll play fair. Yes, people are homosexuals and I doubt, at least my experience, people avoid them due their sexuality.

I'm trying to refrain from using the word 'gay' since gay, originally, meant happy/joyous -- not sure what's so beautiful and happy about same sex 'pairings'  - I also refuse to call same-sex 'couples', well couples. That's reserved for heterosexual relationships. They're "Best Friends Forever" without any actually hopes of procreating with one another because an anus and a penis doesn't biologically produce a baby - it's impossible, nor does a vagina and a vagina. Why? Because a vagina does not produce semen which is needed in order to create a baby. A P and a V does (+fertility and no ABC). There is no actual union between homosexuals (male homosexuals attempt at "sexual union" is more garish than females eating carpet -- I'll admit two females "going at each other" is really "What's the point?").

I know all this is in support for same-sex marriage (anti-bullying is just a convenient smoke & mirrors for the true goal) and that when the judge accepts it as law that's where the "get over it" derives from. Same-sex "marriage" supports will gloat (I've experience first hand) when a law is struck in their favor.

I'll quote some of the responses (it's basically every scenario one think of) -

As a bisexual, it sickens me that some people WILL keep scrolling.

I always say I'm amused - simply because I am. It's rather amusing to me that some people not supporting same-sex "marriage" actually sickens people. So a bisexual is driven to sickness because, if she wants, can't get "married" so her own sex. I won't support such a law for your own "happiness." Please, Get Over It.

As the straight daughter of a gay man, it sickens me that some people will keep scrolling. 

 Okay, and? Not sure if her dad face any discrimination (besides not being able to marry his own sex)?

As a straight girl with a basic understanding of equality and love, it also sickens me that people will keep scrolling.

"A basic understand of equality and love." Oh boy. Where to begin with this one ... A basic understanding of equality is that there really isn't any true equality. Equality - when reality comes into play - is a farce. Sure the homosexual (or bi) man or woman can get married, but to a person of the opposite sex. Two brothers can't get married even if there's consent and both are over 18. In fact, if expansion of "M+F" to "M+M' and "F+F" why limit it to a two party? Why not expand it to three or four? Why not do away with prohibition towards sibling marriages and open it up to Party A, B, C, etc. regardless of sex and blood-line? Why not? I mean, if people objected to such a radical move then they're bigots acting as a road block to the involved parties' happiness - that's according to progressive logic. 

Basic understanding of love? You mean "I have strong feelings for this other person regardless of their sex"? Here are my feelings: I have a strong feeling that the explanation of this "basic understanding of love" will be a bunch of "equality and happiness" rhetoric. I'll probably send her a message and ask. 

As a straight Christian woman, I pray that people will not scroll past this. Love, not judge.

I’m re-reblogging for that last one.

Whoa Now! Not only do we have a person who's straight, but she's also a Christian! Jackpot! Those mean and close minded Christians are so horrid that it's refreshing to see a self-proclaimed Christian preach about Love! Since a straight Christian (with some Kumbaya understanding of love and who, no, doubt, fell for the "Thou Shall Not Judge" - on anything, unless one does not supports SS"M") it's an epic "win"!

Through all this "loving" and not judging SS"M" is passed. That's the goal. That's one of the goals. Not only does the Gay Mafia (as I would like to call them - actually activists and these tumblr rank-and-file types) want society to approve of their relationship but they also want minds to be changed about sexual compatibility. It's not enough for them to get SS"M" approved in every state. Nope. They want there sexual relationships to be seen as completely normal, even though *normal "was" the dreaded state for such advocates.

Well I scrolled. I don't want some horrid social cause looking like a zit on my otherwise nice looking tumblr page. Let alone I'll look like some Millennial without a clue.

*normal: or normalcy - will be a future post.