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.

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.

Quarrels over fish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new "green juice": vegetarianism/non-meat eating. Sorta.

If you haven't been paying attention to the health world of the masses green juice was the "it" thing for sometime. Then studies came out and said that green juice, while good in its intentions, isn't all that when it comes to consuming nutrition and getting the best out of your greens and veggies.

There's a current post on facebook about a "weekday vegetarian" (he eats meats on the weekends) encouraging others to eat less meat and its health benefits. This was a TED Talk. Surprise. Now, I'm all for eating less meat - more so a moderation of it - because I do believe too much of any type of food is harmful. But I'm also not an advocate for full blown non-meat eating unless your diet necessitates it and/or religion forbids eating meat. This is why I give little credence to moral and ethical reasons for not eating meat purely on a secular level. It's not persuasive. It's horrible, horrible philosophy. It's rather shallow even.

One of my favorite brain farts of a non-meat eater:

"We should consciously think about what we wear and eat. Where are clothes come from. Where are food comes from."
"Can I ask you a question that veers off the non-meat eating path?"
"Sure."
"So, what about no premarital sex?"
"Well that's just crazy."

In the comment section of this facebook post there were many who lauded this move and shared their experience with cutting out meat and experience a "jump" in life. One man posted that he lost 13 pounds in two months by simply cutting out meat. I replied I lost about 16 pounds in the same amount of time while I ate meat - every single day. I ate about 4 ounces of chicken breast, a half a cup of rice, a cup of veggies for dinner. I limited my calories to about 1500 than the usual 2000. Add in an at least 45 minutes of exercise six out of seven days and I was losing about two pounds each week. Keep in mind I only ate meat for one meal and it was a limited portion. This is partially why I eye roll when I read enthusiastic stories of eliminating meat and experiencing some new form of self. 

Of course no one is immune to the pathetic philosophy of "do no harm to animals" which follows no meat eating. Fellow Christians and Catholics have express this and I just shake my head.

But hey, I have written about how I feel about the non-eating community that base their choice on "no harm" and ethics and saving the earth from cow farts. I think they're damn idiots. I follow Temple Grandin's thought on animal killing: do it humanely as possible.

I say to my fellow millennials and Gen-Y peers: It's sad that you're an SJW. It's also sad you're a non-meat eater. It's even more sad you're a non-believer. But I can work with non-believers. I can at least reason with them to see my point. The discussions are at least interesting. Non-meat eaters and SJW's? Cult-esque.

Now I'm going to go to Walmart and buy myself a 6lb bag of frozen chicken breasts. I need the protein to recover from my daily runs. It'll taste quite good with some barbecue sauce on the side. Oh, and I can't forget the white rice. 'Cause I'm Asian. Identity politics.

UPDATE: This is the response the poster responded back with -

So I assume you were exercising in addition to your meatless diet. If true, the difference between my diet and lifestyle and yours was that A) I wasn't eating healthy and B) that I lacked exercise. I was a chubby gnome. But you said you went meatless and lost weight. I said I didn't and lost weight as well. Then you throw in the moral and environmental scare cards and say no one's telling anyone to not eat meat. Um, I think you're strongly implying that people shouldn't eat meat for the reasons you give. As for meat not being a need but a luxury in terms of a diet? Isn't that a tautology regarding every person's diet on earth?

"There is simply no logical counter argument."

You've made no logical counter argument against killing animals for food.

Weddings.

I have some opinions that will be considered bizarre if not stupid. So be it.

1. When a bride asks for advice to deal with a friend being upset for not being in the bridal party, many, if not all responses, will say if she were a true friend she'd get over it and should be be honored to be invited as a guest to the ceremony.

My answer: You're not royalty and what if you get divorced? I've been to weddings. Was I honored to be there? No.

2. The whole "it's MY day" to "it's MY wedding."

My answer: Yes, it's your wedding, but what if you get divorced? Where's God in this? You sound like a damn spoiled bitch. "It's all about MEEeeEEEE!"

3. SIL/BIL as bridemaid/groomsman.

My answer: A rather stupid "rule."

It could be just me but I find it very strange how Americans (and I'm an American) approach and view weddings.

As I grow older I find myself rejecting the whole wedding industry complex. If I ever do get married I don't want a bachelor's party. I want the ceremony to focus on my bride, me and God. I don't want it held outside, or at some resort, or Vegas, or a court house. I want the ceremony to be in a Catholic church. No ifs not buts. I want it to be damn simple. I don't want speeches at the reception, at least on my side. Head table? Is this fucking Hogwarts with Professor Dumbledore? I don't want a flock of groomsmen - maybe just a best man. And the honeymoon? Okay, I'll take the honeymoon.

They need to be the victim.

The LGBT can't really point fingers at Christians for killing them. That's Muslim extremists. They can't really logically form an argument that blames Reagan for AIDs since that was their own doing. They can't really blame bigots for hate crimes because a vast majority of them have been proven false.

What can they do now? Claim homelessness. But homelessness by parents who "kick them out" because they're part of the LGBT community. Now, I know some teenagers are kicked out, but it's not even to a point where Obama has to make a speech about it like he did with the fuckery that is transgenderism. Just say the LGBT are being kicked out of their homes at this very moment (sorta like the urgency for people to believe that 1 out 4 woman are raped on campuses) because of narrow-minded, hateful parents. They can't prove it entirely and you can't really disprove That's the beauty of it. The LGBT advocates of the modern age thrive on accusations and guilt and grey areas. Isn't that ironic?

"How can you not believe bisexual kids are being kicked to the curb by their old-fashioned parents? There are statistics to show that a good chuck of homeless kids are part of the LGBT community."
"Sure, I'll partially buy into that. But how accurate of these stories anyways? What I've noticed when an LGBT person buys into the 'ma parents hate me for me' they adopt a heavy victimhood mentality and over night they become like any other LGBT 'ma love is good as yours!' type."
"Well we can't be certain but it does happen!"

Fuck these groups.

Namely because I find them to be self-righteous and smug bastards. These groups I find are just disrespectful bastards who are vindictive. If they want to fuck tradition because they're wallowing in their bitterness because EVERY FACET OF SOCIETY HASN'T ACCEPTED ME then I say fuck the world they want to build because I know it's going to be shit.

1. Gnus
2. immensely insecure LGBT people
3. SJWs (college students, third wave feminists, liberal professors)
4. anti-theists
5. people who accuse everyone for being a "cuck"
6. black people who are hypothetically on the plantation

Honorable goes to No Country types and moderates.

For numerous reasons I'm starting to lose patience with the LGBT community and their supporters. Why do they get the star treatment?

Veganism is a cult.

You can peruse youtube for five minutes and learn a lot about this particular eating lifestyle. Here's what's being discovered over and over again.

1. China Study
2. Cowspiracy
3. animals are sentient
4. lots of congratulations when body builders go vegan
5. Cowspiracy (did I already mention this?)
6. A number of vegans have "vegan" somewhere in their handle, like "Vegan Chris" or, *ironically, even have a title of an anti-meat eating documentary like Earthlings as their online identity.
7. Appeal to science and scientific research (sounds familiar, like modern day atheists ... )
8. Meat eaters are "corpse eating" people. I didn't know that I was living in a Dawn of the Dead reality. 

 Let's try not to be so predictable.

Lady Luna had to mention the Mother Gaia could be saved and starvation would be cured if we only let the animals live. LET THE SENTIENT ANIMALS LIVE!

The only people that went, or tried, the vegan route that I know have been mostly women. The exception was one guy who had a Masters in Sociology (what's with this field, seriously?). These women tried/went the vegan route either in their teens or early twenties. The only cool vegan I know is a young woman who was raised as a vegan. "It's just what we did," she said. The rest? It seems like they're latching onto something or have been convinced that not eating meat is some sort of deep level of awareness and enlightenment.

*I say it's ironic because after watching a video of a body builder saying she'll be going vegan forever I clicked on the video's description to be met with a list of ten documentaries that she recommends on helping one go vegan - Earthlings was listed, and as I clicked on another video talking about veganism one of the poster in the comment section handle was "Watch Earthlings."

EDIT: Wall-E and Interstellar will one day become real in their minds because of how humans treat Mother Gaia causing anthropological global warming by coal usage and the mass slaughter of animals (cows, pigs, fish, chicken) for human consumption.

Playing Pro-Choice For A Day.

The case for abortion is rather simplistic when you put on the modern ball cap. It's all based on bodily autonomy, that no one but the female can ultimately choose to either have the baby or abort it.

The same line of reasoning goes for artificial birth control where the avoidance of pregnancy is the main concern with the avoidance of STD's a distant second. All of this is under the slogan of a woman's "'right" and "choice." This later transitions into women's "healthcare." By not supporting "choice" you're upholding institutional sexism, so the narrative goes.

I'll take this premise further - much further. What if, and I believe it's been advancing already, that one can learn about their future child's mental and physical health before it is fully formed int he woman's uterus. What if the child is non-straight  -say the child will grow up to be a bisexual or a homosexual, that is if certain prenatal environments are found to support the "born that way" narrative, and if the parents do not want their child to be "born that way," wouldn't that be reasons enough to abort? The suicide rate for non-straights are higher than straights. Or what if the child will be born with certain physical deformities or conditions like ectrodactyly (claw/cleft hand) or Down Syndrome? Sound grounds for abortion?

If the field of medicine can turn into Gattaca, where the parents can find out the potential illnesses, disorder and deformities their child is prone to then all the better, right? We can construct a fetus with the very best qualities of the parents. A below average boy, without genetic manipulation, might be met with a less bright future than if the parents would turn to genetic manipulation to produce an average boy with a possible brighter future. 

To oppose the abortion of the LGBT would be just moralizing, afterall, it is the woman's body and under the concept of body autonomy her sovereignty reigns supreme. It's her choice. Same with any other reason a woman wants to abort the "goo." It would be one step to save the earth from over population. To save the earth from harmful carbon gases.

What if my future wife and I decide that we want our children to have what we would consider "the best" qualities of each of us? We'd want grandchildren as well so we'd opt for a straight only child. Any "goo" that is reported to be LGBT would be axed. Some parents might not care or think it's wonderful, but this non of their business. We'll conduct the process and attribute the attributes the way we see fit. What if the "goo" shows signs of retardation? Axe the living shit out of it. I don't need the heartbreak and stress of that. What if the child ends being rather slow in academics? Possible grounds being axed because my wife and I want a child that can pull in a B average, at the very least. 

So from not wanting to have a baby due to not wanting to experience child labor to having the time & resources to raise that child, or just not wanting a child because motherhood is not what they want, I think it's reasonable to not want the "goo" because, if the days of Gattaca ever come, the woman who wants a child made to her own liking she has the right to axe any "goo" that doesn't meer her standard. The child that is brought into the world is costumed and therefor more wanted. Seems fair enough. After all, it's a woman's body. 

Now that would be true progress. The reason to practice "choice" just became more interesting and fascinating. If we are trying to perfect made made institituions, say the economy, then this would be one giant step for mankind to customize our progeny before they even take their first breath. 

Yes, pro-choice, indeed.

The government will protect its own.

When tapes showed Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, defenders of the organization either said the tapes had selective editing or that it was fake.

When tapes showed ACORN aiding in setting up a brothel, the defenders of the organization said the tapes had selective editing.

In both cases each organization was found "innocent."

Oddly enough, even after the bankruptcy of ACORN no more than  year later after the tapes were released, why wasn't James O' Keefe charged with a serious lawsuit? After all, if O' Keefe took down an organization based on false premises and edited tapes, he'd be thrown into jail for quite some time, right? Surely, if his tapes were indeed a misinterpretation of what transpired how come no one from the organization filed a lawsuit against him (he was charged and had to pay a $125K for distortion at one Californian ACORN branch)?

When I searched "ACORN voter fraud" it barely registered any relevant hits. A few conservative and small-time online news sites were tracked, but zero from CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ, WashPO, AP etc. A HuffPo article showed up, but that was in a rebuttal to ACORN's fall. It's as if any shred of evidence pointing that ACORN was guilty was carefully omitted from searches, but anything that lead to its innocence was available (after some light digging).

Something smells "edited."

Both of those who lead the undercover projects were later met with legal issues. James O' Keefe of the ACORN controversy was charged with distortion (125K fine) and David Daleiden of the Planned Parenthood videos was met with an indictment of false ID presentation.

As for the organizations, Planned Parenthood was grilled in front of Congress but was found innocent. That strangely sounds familiar: Hillary Clinton being grilled in front of Congress for highly sensitive emails but walked away 'clean.'

Sites like wikepedia, rationalwiki and conservapeida all have pages dedicated to each incident and each article sounds like it was edited by leftists. Wikipedia had the least slime, but the last two was just a pathetic presentation of the controversies.

But bakers, pizza owners, and florists? Guilty as charged. For what? For practicing "discrimination" against same-sex pairings. And by gosh, the "evidence" was damning.

Catholics are an interesting bunch.

Catholics who support socialism.
Catholics who think the 'free market' is mean and evil.
Catholics who think that other Catholics put too much emphasis on marriage and the nuclear family.
Catholics who are "no country" types.

Why are they Catholic again? This is good, though. It shows that there's diversity in thought among Catholics.

It's too bad those that want socialism (let me guess, you work a shitty job and you don't have any real marketable skills) want a system that has been proven wrong time and again. But, but, but the 'free market' is killing us! Killing. You read that correctly.

Those who think the Church and other Catholics put too much emphasis on the married nuclear family can just leave. Seriously. I'm not the "move to another country what don't ya" type, but the RCC needs people who believe in the married nuclear family with every fiber in their being, not lukewarm types who are better of at some Episcopalian church.

As for the "no country" types, well, I heard through the grapevine that Interstellar was going to happen - the space habitat that is, not the dust storms. I'm kidding. NASA hasn't yet released an official statement.

Where's Milo Yiannopoulos when you need him?

A Texas pastor ordered a cake from Whole Foods, asking to have "Love Wins" written. The cake decorator went above and beyond his duties, though.

"The attorneys for Pastor Jordan Brown said he ordered a cake from a Whole Foods store with the personalized message "Love Wins," but when he received it, the cake said "Love Wins F**."'

 Whole Foods is popular with urban yuppies and "raw food" eaters who tend to lean left on economic and social issues, so this was a little funny. But then again Christians are publicly mocked (SNL, Modern Family, Law & Order, academia) and it doesn't become national news. The word "fag/faggot" has become to the new n-word in terms of that word of socially unacceptable pejoratives. 

The government sedevacantists.

Catholic Answers: A bunch of DNC sympathizers.
Fisheaters: A bunch of "no country" Catholics.

Let me explain. People posting in CA's secular forum are pretty much obsessed with Donal Trump. Not in the "The Donald" way, but in a OH GOD THIS IS WHAT THE BASTARD SAID! Fisheaters tend to attract more traditional Catholics who are more aware of The Left, with a touch of 'alt-right' but not in a good way. This 'alt-right' is home to some bitches who have some odd interpretation of what the Civil War meant, bemoan that there is no third party (fair enough, but the way they do it so pathetic) and no longer can be deemed as patriotic. Their country isn't the USA; it is seen as a lifeless body in which they supposedly happen to live in.

Instead of hating on the United States that it isn't like Western Europe, New Zealand or South Africa, or even Brazil, like Leftists do the Fisheater political aware poster doesn't believe it's been a real nation since 1865. Instead of omitting God (as would the ardent atheist/secularist/humanist ... whatever they call themselves) when he says the pledge of allegiance he omits "indivisible" and "one nation." These  people I call "government sedevacantists."

These two distinct types do have one thing in common, besides trying to be the best Catholics they can be: They make note that they aren't happy with the current slate of POTUS nominees. Some on CA will be sympathetic to Sanders because they went full retard and think that doing God's will is enacting "fairness" and a "living wage" aka socialism. Fisheaters, acting like weird-ass political outliers, think that every (R) candidate is filled with corruption. Basically, these people don't vote. Then they have the audacity to moan about how America is a godforsaken land.

Oddly enough I have more qualms with the fisheater type. He's more hardheaded and plays his own version of "want your cake and eat it too." In some striking ways he is the same at the Leftist who hate's American for not being like Sweden, Norway or Iceland. At least those who subscribe to Western Europe bowing tells the world what they want; the political fisheater doesn't broadcast what he wants America to be, just that it "it's lost" and that his version of patriotism really doesn't do anything besides bitching about how every politician is bought-and-sold.

Of course, like every jaded poster, he tends to express his heart either in his handle or avatar (again, like secular Leftists - with the "A" for atheist for their avatar, or maybe the popular Spaghetti Monster). Notice the stars in the American flag are replaced by the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Remember, this government sedevacantist is only loyal to his state and the RCC. The stars representing each state means nothing to him because the US was lost in 1865.

Let's look at headmaster of fisheasters, Vox, thoughts on the term Judeo-Christianity. Gone full retard? I'll leave that up you to decide.

Posters like Vox and the government sedevacantists are modernists/leftists in their own special way despite adhering to traditional Catholicism: They dismiss any patriotism and make up their own version of it, sorta like Leftists when it comes to family and marriage. They are no better than their Leftist counterparts.

And it takes a son of immigrants to show how idiotic the "American Dream is Dead" types are. The poster "Might_4_Right" has an Italy flag for his location. An American expat in Italy, maybe? If he is then he's the last person who should talk (e,g Vox Day). A coward who left for "greener pastures." If he's indeed a foreigner then he's the same anti-American European who just drinks the BBC-esque Kool-Aid.

Talking to a Swede about politics, let alone meritocracy.

There is no point, really. They're secular as can be and so far left that it ain't funny. In fact, their country is put on the pedestal by the American Left. That's one sign that tells you what you're dealing with.

God's Not Dead: Real Life

You can't make this stuff up.

“Don’t take this class if you believe the Bible is inspired or infallible.”

That was how a professor at UC Berkeley had launched his “Jewish Civilization I: The Biblical Period” course, a class in which a stunned doctoral student David Kurz sat.

“This stuff isn’t taught in synagogues or churches because they don’t want to piss people off,” the professor had continued. “… Anyone can take this class, as long as you play by the rules of the game. … If you disagree with the approach we use, that’s an F.”

Kurz — who earned his bachelor’s degree in ecology and evolutionary biology from Princeton University and master’s degree in biological science from the University of Cambridge — was shocked at the professor’s declaration.

Kurz decided to challenge the professor:

I politely peppered my professor with questions to try to better understand his intellectual paradigm. Just to be clear, there is a correct answer you want us to accept, I asked. “Correct.” What about rigorous biblical scholarship claiming, for instance, that Moses did, in fact, write the vast majority of the Pentateuch? “That doesn’t exist.” It does, I argued. “I don’t want people who are going to disagree with me all semester,” he repeated. I thought a university was an environment in which multiple viewpoints and debates were encouraged, I countered. “Not in this classroom” came the maddeningly smug response.

After the class, I was left shaking my head, a mixture of indignation, sadness, confusion and frustration exploding inside me. As I packed up my things, other students came over to me and thanked me for my questions, explaining that they, too, were upset about the professor’s overly harsh attitude toward religion and religious students. We all felt the arrogance of the professor and the injustice of the situation, but did not know what to do about it.

And the comment box ... Classic. Atheists found their way to the article and act as typical Gnus that they are.

I also want to note that CollegeFix.com, depending on the article's topic, tends to get its typical posts from opposing groups e.g. God's Not Dead gets atheists and such groups usually play the standard cards of which I'm all too fluent it.

There are have been numerous accusations that the stories on CollegeFix.com are exaggerated (see: Steven Glick story, David Kurz story) and many who believe that the atmosphere once inside the classrooms on the majority of campuses, whether they be private or public institutions of higher learning, is not liberal -- many believe that it's a neutral atmosphere. Clearly, as sites like CollegeFix.com and Mind the Campus prove otherwise. What's interesting about those who say that both Glick and Kurz are lying is that both have written articles about their respective incidents in their school newspaper, detailing what has happened to them (unlike pieces written in Yale Daily News about racism and sexism without actually giving clear examples). The notion that maybe misunderstanding in on the students part is reasonable, but as I think about it I do not believe that is necessarily so. I am convince that what both Glick and Kurz write about is fairly accurate on how the event(s) took place. If they were indeed lying then the professors that they accuse would have called them out on being liars. So far they have not issued a statement to clear things up.

My Cruz & Sanders rally experience.

Yesterday I attended a rally in the suburbs of Chicago; to be exact I went to Glen Ellyn where a Ted Cruz rally was being held around noon. Last Friday I attended a Sanders rally. First, I will recall Cruz.

The following is what I experienced.

• Cruz likes his rallies, if they aren't held in a convention center, to be rather posh. This past Friday he was a guest speaker at Chicago's Palmer House. Tickets cost $$. I assume most at the Friday non-free event were mostly older than 40 and white. In my case the Glen Ellyn rally was free and was held in a nice wedding banquet hall. 
• Glen Ellyn would be considered an upper-middle suburb. About $90K per household. High $39K per capita.
• When I arrived the line wasn't long, just a bunch of people waiting outside the banquet doors. People were filling out "info cards" and were buying Cruz football jerseys ($45 each as opposed to $50 on his site).
• There was no one telling people to empty out their purses and bags. There was no security vetting the crowd. You simple had to walk in with a smile and present your ticket if you had one.
• People in my age bracket, millennials, weren't smoking like the Bernie Sanders crowd (which I will give a post later this week). They were mostly better dressed than the Sanders millennial crowd.
• Speaking of millennials being present - they were a minority. Most of the crowd that I've observed were on the older side, say 40 and up. To bring in race, many were white; some of Cruz's event helpers were Asian and black who were well-dressed. Very professional.
• As the banquet doors opened and people filed in, I was able to snag a seat near the press stage where the network cameras were to be set-up. I over heard an elderly woman saying to another to not take radiation because it causes cancer. "Don't let them [doctors] talk you into therapy you're unsure of." She was talking about mmograms because her doctor encouraged to take one for her left breast as well as her right. She didn't trust her.
• The event started only three minutes late. Cruz was on stage within 15 minutes after his introduction.
• A local conservative talk show host, Wheaton State Representative Jeanne Ives and a nearby black minister introduced Cruz. The talk show host talked about conservatism and Cruz's consistency as compared to Trump; Ives talked about her military sons and her trusting Cruz on being Commander of Chief (she, like her son Nick, is a West Point grad); the minister also talked about conservatism and religious life. 
• Before Cruz took the stage, the minister led the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. A lot of "Amen!"s were shouted when he asked the audience to pray.
• About halfway through Cruz's rally an animal rights activist interrupted. She and her partner in crime were escorted out.
• There was a huge "Trusted" backdrop in the other half of the banquet hall. People where getting their picture taken there afterwards.
• My placard was "stolen" underneath my seat. In quotes because I sorta let them have it - without my permission. The story goes as this: A group of ladies were searching for a placard for another, who was sitting right next to me, who asked where they got theirs. "Oh, there's one underneath that seat." That seat was mine. The entire rally she was waving it. Whatever. It's not like Cruz will get the (R) nomination let alone win Illinois since it'll be Trump for both. I remember getting a Romney placard and we all how 2012 turned out so I was a little hesitant to even actually want one. I gotta learn my lesson.
• I'll mention my peers again, though on a more superficial level. I will admit the females I saw were rather attractive. In fact, (R) women tend to be more attractive than (D) women for whatever reason, or at least the conservative side of campus liberalism and onward. *See: Emily Jashinky, Tomi Lahren, Katie Pavlich. 
 

The entire speech is below.

Onto my Sanders rally held at a suburban high school on the southwest side of Chicago. Summit is a low-middle community.

•  School buses transported people from the Toyota Park stadium to the school since there was limited parking due to the community being located in a rather blue-collar, old semi-urban area.
• During the bus ride a high school student, who later waited in line in front of me, could not believe that his friend of going to the Trump rally at UIC Pavilion. As he said, "He was drawing a stars and stripes on the poster. Then drew an eagle ... I said 'Why? Why support this man?' I couldn't believe it." 
• A fellow bus passenger was talking with a the mentioned student's group of friends, who noted that most of Trump supporters were white versus the ethnic diversity of Sanders supporters. She then proceeded to say that she was part Native American. The woman was white. Elizabeth Warren 2.0?
• Said woman encouraged the teenagers to go on youtube and compare Trump and Hitler speeches. "This is what his supporters are pushing," she proclaimed.
• It was cold, but not too cold outside. I waited for about an 1.5 hours to get into the high school. 
• The buses dropped off its passengers on the corner of Archer & 63rd St. From there we slowly crept forward with Sanders campaign volunteers telling us that no guns, knifes, or any weapons were allowed and to keep our cellphones on (to not be mistaken for a bomb). I said to mom who came with me "It seems like we're entering a CPS," with a chuckle. If Chicago decided to actually incorporate Summit then Argo High School would be a CPS (if you walk one block east towards Harlem Ave. you're in Chicago proper).
• There was a women was with a "Vegan Vote for Sanders" sign. 
• A few teenagers from DuPage County traveled to hear Sanders.
• Many of those who waited in line were youth; mainly 25 and under. I am not sure if many were Argo High School students.
• The people waiting were more ethnically diverse.
• A handful of people smoking. Many were dressed in a very "grunge, alternative" look. 
• The kids in front were rather peppy, excited about the possibility of Sanders becoming the DNC nomination if not POTUS.
• There was a Sanders bus (official) driving down 63rd getting the line cheering every now and then. A lot of honking by cars that passed.
• An anti-Monsanto chalk sign was present. The "Vegans Vote for Sanders" woman took a picture of it. 
• A lot of talk of Trump while waiting by the people behind me. There was no talk about Sanders facing Clinton. 
• When word got out that the Trump rally was cancelled the woman behind me, a UIC alumnus, gleefully expressed her feelings. "Yes! Yes! Get out of Chicago! We don't want you here! Welcome to Chicago and go back to NYC!" Since the story was breaking news to us, we did not know if there was violence - whether it was on Trump supporters or on the protesters. The UIC alumnus said, "Look how peaceful we are here!" (Note: it was the protesters that caused the cancellation and who were rowdy).
• Across the street of the high school there was a VFW where one man was standing holding a 3 Percenter Flag in silence. One crowd member thought aloud that he might be a Trump supporter. There were some vets in line waiting wearing NRA hats so who knows.
• Security was divided into two lines: bags & no bags. This was causing the line and making it look like there were more people than there were in reality.  Once we filed into our own security lines the process was painless.
• The inside track & field house was humid since everyone was conglomerated in one place with very little ventilation of cool air. There was one young woman who had to sit down because of overheating - the firefighters that were on scene assisted her.
• When compared to the people who introduced Cruz (more local), Sanders had more political prominent backers. Jesse Jackson's son and Jesús "Chuy" García - the sole rival for Mayor Rahm Emmanuel in last years mayoral race. 
• Sanders appeals to a much broader audience. Blacks, Hispanics, dope heads, naive college & high school kids, and Muslims. This comes to no surprise because of Sanders' promises e.g. free college & healthcare, "I like everyone," his dislike for billionaires (not just corporate billionaires). He's the new Obama for The Left. Hillary Clinton has become passe. 
• When Sanders mentioned war, Bush and Cheney, a couple of people in the crowd yelled "War criminals!"
• When speaking about "family values," and when he said "family values" he said it in a very mocking way, he mentioned how he supports single motherhood and a woman's "right" to choose, same-sex adoption and how people who didn't support same-sex unions weren't for "family values."
• Sanders made it clear that he'll use executive orders in order to get what he wants if Congress doesn't approve.
• Marijuana was brought up. Sanders said he would take MJ off the FDA paper as an illegal drug - the people really cheered. He said that he would let states decide to whether or not to make it legal. There was little cheer. 
• It comes to little surprise on why Argo High School was chosen: the surrounding community is a gold mine for (D)s and for politicians like Sanders. Near by Bridgeview has one of the largest Muslim communities. Southwest Chicago is home to mostly Hispanics, union workers and families that traditional voted (D). Since it has a large contingency of non-whites Sanders can pull in a lot of votes.

Sanders' full speech is below.

I have realized that Cruz and Sanders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, both in philosophy, upbringing and who supports them in terms of ethnic background.

Today in the newspaper it was said that Hillary Clinton was visiting the West Side of Chicago, speaking to union workers and visiting the Roseland community, a predominately black Chicago neighborhood for last minute votes. Inner city voter outreach is a  huge advantage to the (D)s. I do not remember Romney visiting places like Roseland on his Midwest campaign tour, and nowhere on Cruz's event page does it have inner city visits. Of course this is all a strategic plan: Get the votes where you know you can appeal.; every campaign is on a budget. The (D)s can travel almost anywhere. The (R)s are practically regulated to the suburbs and the farmland in most blue states.

*I'm fully aware that the listed women are all white, so for some ethnic diversity I will include Mia Love and Michelle Malkin, both who I think are pretty, not to mention older than those I originally listed and married as well. 

The obnoxious over at Social Matter

Social Matter is one of my favorite sites, but sometimes it can be bogged down with history (some contributors are pagans and it shows; their writing, while interesting, is generally boring -- sometimes they appear to be try-hards when talking about ancient Western civilization) and sometimes gets too "I wish we were knights" and other shit like that.

Occasionally you get people in the comment box who rant and rant and ... Rant.  Take for example poster "'Reality' Doug." Notice that he calls Christian religions "Abrahamic religions," which, in my experience are people who are secularists. No Christian that I encounter calls their religion such. It's as if a homosexual who tries to pose as a straight says, "I'm a heterosexual." Those who are straight say, "I'm straight." There are two kinds of people who put their worldview in their handle: atheists and SJWs. Doug is most definitely the former. His post reads like a brick.

Then there's "G. Mayre" who's the quintessential bitter alt-right fellow.

This is partially why I'm not alt-right. In general they're way too bitter and I don't subscribe to the PUA game. I mean, what on earth do the likes of 'Reality' Doug and G. Mayre do when they try to talk to women?

"Hey, I know a lot about ancient Western civilization. I'm approaching my 40s. Single. Never had kids. I'm a MGTOW. I'm noble pagan."

Yea, that'll get the women in bed with them.

I think such people are losers despite them wearing their MGTOW badge on their arm sleeve. I'll say it: The alt-right are mostly losers and I'm not impressed with their weird fetish with ancient Western civilization. I don't think it ever made them money; I don't think they even have degrees in such a discipline.

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

Wait ... I missed the memo.

When did the philosophy of award shows (including nominations) and casting/characters "needed to look the way the world looks"?

According to J.J. Abrahms not having a homosexual character is narrow-minded and that the recent Academy Awards was shameful because it wasn't inclusive enough.

["]It’s shameful,” he added. “We all need to do better to represent this world. It’s something that is important to me.”

"Top" 10 Things People Hate About the Catholic Church

I'm currently reading on why there seems to be tension between non-Catholics, mostly the Reformed Protestants, and Catholics. Now, it's usually on the part of the Protestant who gets a bit testy when Catholicism is in the discussion of faith. From my observation Catholics are similar to Americans who "likes everyone" yet "everyone" has "issues" with Americans. The tension is fairly interesting and exciting to read; it's as if Protestants feel like they got shafted from the religious limelight or something.

Here's is poster "Blake"'s "Top Ten" (with my commentary in below) -

10: Kiddy-fiddling. Okay, okay–I recognize that your religion is actually against this, that other religions have the same problem, and most of the “children” were actually teenagers (making the term “pedophilia” clinically inaccurate), but as you know, the cover-up has cost you a lot of goodwill.

Fair enough. But then how about public education on the elementary levels? How about the entertainment industry? Let's keep things in perspective.

9. Bullying political behavior around the world, basically in every country where Catholics dominate. (“The Inquisition, what a show…”)

The RCC a bully when it dominated? Please, tell me more. You gotta name more events besides one, especially the ever famous Inquisition in the 1100s. I sorta saw the Crusade card pop up.

8. Birth control. On many issues there is disagreement, even argument, but this one just leaves Protestants scratching their heads. (Cue Monty Python, “Every Sperm is Sacred”) And is it my imagination, or does the Church forbid oral sex as well? (“Open thou our lips…”)

Okay, just admit you just want to be slappin' skin and "gettin' it" without the possible natural "consequence" aka end result of bed gymnastics: a child. I will be honest I never saw this issue as a legit issue mainly because a child is the natural end result if sex is done honestly. Body and soul, right? As for oral sex, it's a grey area. I haven't anything forbidding fellatio. Sex is for procreation and bonding. Now one can argue that oral sex is the misuse of ones mouth and therefore equal to anal sex, but that confusing the anus with the vagina, or using the anus because your sex partner doesn't have a vagina.

7. Thomas Aquinas, whose theology has been the official Catholic ideology since the 19th century, despite general agreement among philosophers that he did not really succeed in proving the existence of God or the truth of Catholic doctrine in general.

I've read that Plato royally fucked up science without any papers or arguments on where he went wrong. I will take the rejection of Aquinas as the same prejudice as those who rejected Plato. Plus, who are these philosophers? Are they theologians as well? Are the modern day philosophers in academia? If you're aware, the health of philosophy - as a discipline - isn't strong today (as of 2016). There seems to be no consensus on anything (that's were continental philosophy and analytical philosophy receive demerits) and a vast majority in philosophy are atheists. Atheist turned believer (a Catholic), Ed Feser tries to explain it.

6. Do Buddhists go around proclaiming that they saw giant images of Buddha appear in the sky? ‘Nuff said.

A petty issue. I'm a millennial so I don't see this as an actually issue.

5. All that flamboyant frilly stuff. It’s ironic that they’re trying to kick the gays out, because if gays were to start their own religion, it would probably look a lot like Catholicism.

I have no idea where you got the idea that if homosexuals started their own religion with be similar to Catholicism. You're assuming that all of the apostles were homosexuals (Blake, are you implying about yourself?). There's a huge fallacy in the road, better not hit it. Oh wait, you already did ...

4. Exorcism. Come to think of it, Satanists and Catholicism would probably be a natural fit. (You know–all the robes and spooky music…?)

This beyond stupid. This list is getting more pathetic as I read.

3. The “sausage factory” for turning out saints: JP2 dies, they wait a bit, somebody claims to have been healed by ghost of JP2 (or however it goes), JP2 advances a notch.

Meh. 

2. Having a pope who is sort of infallible, or at least very authoritative. Liberals hate the conservative ones (which is all of the ones in recent memory), conservatives distrust a system in which some future leader can wave his hand and presto! women priests or whatever. It’s the religious version of having a dominatrix.

The Pope isn't "sort of" infallible. He's infallible on religious issues, which encompasses many things. As for comparing the Pope's authority to a dominatrix, well, that's stupid as well. I'm not even sure what that Blake is even aware of what the Pope's job is and why Catholics react the way they do. I don't believe the Pope, deep in some secluded chamber within the Vatican walls, has a torture chamber so he can practice BDSM on his most trusted cardinals or a random Italian boy. The reason why conservative, or traditionalists, do not like a liberal Pope because the RCC's doctrine does not uphold or gives reason for a female priests. The RCC isn't the Episcopalian Church. It's common sense, Blake.

1. Refusal to accept that you’re just one more denomination like everybody else.

Why should Catholics accept it? The RCC and Catholics acknowledge other denominations exist but so far non-Catholic denominations have not successfully refuted any of Church's teachings on why it's wrong, or "just like any other." The RCC is a religious "leader" in the way the USA is the "leader" of the free world. USA is not just like Canada, or England, or Sweden, or Norway, or Australia. It's the USA. And the RCC is the RCC.

Gnu's get their hurt out for their idol Hitchens.

Not Peter, but Christopher.

Bolland wrote a rather seething article when news of Christopher Hitchens died. A handful of atheists found the site and expressed their, er, sound minds to those that have stumbled upon the article years later. See below.

Zorro did the typical name calling. Meh.

HairyMary is to mock "Hail Mary." Not clever nor funny. The user can do better. The use goes on the usual "majority" card and then builds off off that that, though no evidence of God, that their is evidence that religious belief has created "hell on earth."

Henry Page, if you click on his handle, brings you to his twitter account where he lists that he is a single dad AND a single step-dad. Hoo boy. And that he's an atheist. His comment is the usual inference that the RCC is the most corrupt religious organization in the world.