Blacks and Academics

So far, most of the Blacks in the US who are academics, or have a strong academic lean, usually towards the liberals arts and social sciences tend to focus on race. Not the Thomas Sowell type of focus, but the "we were oppressed" type and "gonna figure the social justice out for my people because it's not equal" type.

Take for instance Eli Devaughn (Harvard undergrad, Rhodes Scholar) and Danielle Green (former teacher,  PhD Stanford focusing on education). 

Americans and Insularity: A Double Standard By Non-Americans (And Self-Loathing Americans)

 If non-Americans, if asked on their impressions of Americans in general, and they say they think we're insular because they read or watched something by an American that they deemed as "slightly backwards" or not inclusive, I ask "Compared to what?"

I argue that the US is no more insular than any other Western country. 

Wouldn't it be a double standard to claim London is not insular or the country of England is not insular, but inclusive yet they ban conservative thinkers like Rush Limbaugh, give the cold shoulder to then Senator Mitt Romney when visiting, and make a giant blow-up balloon of then President Trump? Should we get into the almost unanimous negative opinion of Donald Trump and "what he represents" (as said by a Londoner)? Wound't it be hypocritical of a Londoner saying that what makes London great is that you can meet different people each day from all walks of life yet deem an American "slightly backwards" because you didn't agree with what he said? Let us not get into cultural relativism where the premise is that differences in one culture does not make is inferior or superior to another - just different. The Londoner would be pulling the rug from underneath his own feet! Indeed, if the Londoner views the American as "slightly backwards" that's a value statement being made - a statement that reaches to an absolute truth - that this belief is "slightly backwards." But by his own modern framework that "slightly backwards" belief is no better or worse than any other culture or belief one would encounter in London on any given day no matter the time or season.

The talks about inclusivity and diversity is just that - talk. It means very little. It does not matter if you can meet people from different backgrounds each day if you yourself do not take advantage of the resources that their culture brings, or better yet get to know them on a personal level. It's all window dressing. Just because you have a university degree doesn't make you smart or wise. Just because you're 18 doesn't make you an actual adult fully capable of discerning "adult decisions." Just because you make "art" doesn't make you insightful, talented or fearless. 

Remember This: Many on The Left Were The Ones Disparaging The Death of Late Queen Elizabeth

As opposed to many on the right who gave their respects to the Royal Family even if they did not care for the monarchy. (After all, we're bloody Americans! We bow before no human royalty.)

Former President Trump also wrote (or his publicist) a fine farewell to the Queen Elizabeth. And The Left thought they had some decency? Yea right. 

You're an "adult" who can make their own decisions. Okay. Don't get pissed off if people eat meat, eats the occasional donut or two, believes in a divine and chooses not to live in either NYC, LA, London or Paris.

The talking of "he is an adult who leads his own life and makes his own life decisions" is relatively vapid. The phrasing always struck me as a bit smug and self-important. Why? It's uses the age of majority as some sort of standard when in reality that line is, well, arbitrary to begin with. Usually the phrase is used when someone defends questionable actions when someone more conservative objects. 

A 10 year old has enough mental capacity to know exactly what they want, granted they aren't making the same decisions that an 18 or 20 year old would make, but nonetheless making age appropriate decisions that are usually not subjected to a parent's order or wishes. Some examples would be what PG-13 movie to watch or whether or not to join Peter and Tim at the park to play some football after homework is done. A 10 year old can make a decision on whether or not to eat a pop-tart for breakfast with a glass of orange juice or wheat cereal with a glass of milk. As a parent, you usually respect either decision and rarely do you subject them to eat both a pop-tart and cereal while drinking orange juice and milk.

One issue with Western civilization is how they raise children into adults. 18 isn't a major number. It does not denote anything besides "legally an adult and as an adult you'll be charged as an adult if you commit a crime." If a libertine uses the "they're an adult - respect their choice and move on", then they should also use that same phrase to defend people who do stuff that's opposite to what they think is right, moral and ethical. 

Hate-Following By Non-Republicans on Social Media: Tumblr, Media and Academia Made Millennials and Gen Z Hate The Privileged (And Republicans)

Because backwards politics on sex and sexuality, gender, race and whatever.

And something about privilege and them being (usually) white. 

Lately I've did some lazy binge watching on YouTube, just clicking on whatever pops up on my recommendation feed. A couple of channels were from wealthy young women who focused on what is called "lifestyle" - so everyday stuff, usually about travel and fashion. In general, to accumulate a following if you aren't doing anything that makes you stand out you most likely have to be pretty in order to get attention; this is no secret. A likable personality works in your favor too (fair enough). For example, if your channel is a mishmash of cooking and lifestyle (or food/fashion challenges) - all topics which have been done, but you aren't really good at either of them, then that's where looks and personality comes. Editing is godsend since that's like a college counselor making your otherwise bereft resume look like you're some all-star when you're really not. Anyways. 

If you're wealthy you do get more attention, but this attention is more of the envious kind. And this is where it gets interesting. This where "hate-following" comes in.

There were two young women that I quickly watched, one where after a few videos of quick skimming just didn't catch my interest enough to even care what she had to say; real quickly I did notice that she was privileged in the "travel and not really have a 'real' job'" sorta privilege way - living in NYC after college and was a model after high school. Modeling isn't really a longtime career for many who enter - usually it's a two or three years - and then sometimes they're attached to a similar industry for their annual income (whether acting or marketing or working at an agency). I wondered if anyone noticed the same thing, so naturally I googled this person with "reddit" attached to the search and found that, yes, other people had an opinion on her. And some of it was the usual SJW/Woke rhetoric.

"She's privileged."

"Most of her friends are not white."

"She tries to 'pass as white' despite only a quarter of her is Iranian!"

"Isn't it funny she's dating a Republican?" (I guess because she's part Iranian.)

"She keeps reminding people she was born in Paris. She's a missionary baby!"

Her parents apparently were Christian missionaries where she was born overseas, but if you were born overseas in that situation then it's less cool supposedly and "authentic" unlike, I dunno, being born to parents who are naturalized citizens of X or Y Western European country, where your mother was a ballet dancer and your father was socialist activist, and  you moved around every five or so years - some upbringing that some leftie artist or professor flexes about in their biography. 

On r/blogsnark, a reddit subreddit dedicated gossip about online personalities, a woman named Carly apparently did some collaboration with the Bush daughters (daughters of George W. Bush). This isn't cool in the predominately female, leftie leaning and thickheaded gossip followers that hang out in r/blogsnark. After this comment literally stupidness emerged and the can of worms of politics entered the chat. Some were defending the Bush sisters and their mother, saying they seem like reasonable people who acknowledge their "evil" father. Others were just plain delirious on the topic. One person recognized the insanity of it - where the insanity almost blamed them for their familial connection to GWB - and simply asked what in their mind they should do to appease them. As usual, like the college campus BLM demands, when asked what they want usually the demand is quite tame. In this the response was -

"They should at least distance themselves from their father."

Rather absurd. If you don't publicly denounce GWB then you're compliant in the questionable policies he has passed. 

You see, the histrionics of SJW/Leftie retards on the internet is quite impressive. They have a gift to ramble by compiling a novel of talking point after talking point, but, in reality, they don't hav much substance. They yell and throw a fit but once you ask a direct question like "well what do you want to happen?" they'll reply with a quiet "well you see if they just apologized and did this and that then that would be a start ... "

A mouse who acts like a lion.

These screen caps tell the story -

So I guess Democrats are cool parents where their kids get off scotch free. I mean, let's face it, Malia Obamas didn't get into Harvard purely on her academic and extracurricular brilliance. She got in because of who her parents were. Wouldn't be surprise if University of Michigan's acceptance for Sasha was in the bag too. But Obama was so cool and rad, despite doing drone strikes. Besides literally re-starting the racial tension we see today that made Democrat blacks in the Trump Era fragile. Ever read Michelle Obama's senior thesis while at Princeton? It was shit. 

Double standard. Paranoia. The typical douchebaggery from non-Republicans. 

I'm not a Republican, but this type of behavior isn't new. It's just amplified on the internet. In real life I know a few people who despise the fact that anyone they know is a Republican. One said she'd never date a Republican. This same person also came across as a person who knew every non-progressive NGO as if to keep on eye on them. Normal functioning humans, but their psychology is sorta kinda messed up when it comes to their own politics and anything that runs the opposite direction of it. It's a weird mix of a secular religion and tribalism. 

Bottomline: If you're anything remotely privileged in terms of wealth and upbringing where you travel, have nice clothes and have anything remotely conservative affiliated to your name (or in the case of Carly, associate with yourself with anything politically right-of-center), or you yourself are conservative as well you're going to be the target of many jealous and hateful young women. These same people will probably fawn over rich actors though who most likely have a career because of whom their parents are but hey, rich, white YouTube influences are just source of our problems in todays world, right? 

Biden the so-called "Good" Catholic.

 I knew it was all just a facade to build an image.

Compared to What? That's the Question Thomas Sowell Asks.

 Non-Americans and Americans alike, usually they lean left, are quick to point out issues found within the States. But compared to what? They act like the issue the US is facing is solely a US issue or that it's such an issue to a degree that's unique to the US. Take for example this post on Reddit written about a year ago by a non-American when an American brought up the fact that non-American rarely ever compliment the cultural impact it has on the world in the form of authors and music; usually non-Americans comment on the geography of the place.

But compared to what? Trump? Non-Americans think anything not Obama is a freak show or some white privileged person, so I don't take a European's opinion on Trump anymore seriously; I take it as seriously when a ten year old speaks about politics. Violence, death, hate, war? So what. All those can be found in Western Europe as well. If you don't live in the States then you don't have much of a right to criticize it for the things that you dock points from it. 

Antivaxxers? Who cares. In a place like America antivaxxers are allowed to voice their opinions. White supremacists? Same thing with antivaxxers - non-Americans are stunned to think such a group exists despite them being a minority. It's called difference of opinions. Poverty? Okay, and? Awful healthcare? The people who say this are non-Americans and people who are underemployed. Sorry but if you're gainfully employed and you know how to use your healthcare network healthcare in the States serves you with relative decency. US healthcare has its issues but to say it's awful, by a European, is showcasing your own ignorance. 

As for the "US had been in the news negatively for decades" that's probably more so the anti-American/weird fasciation with America Western Europeans have with the country. I heard Germany is relatively anti-American in its media. BBC is a shit show like CNN and MSNBC. I mean, what country is shown positively that's a global superpower? Not one. 

Yes, Non-Americans, Usually From Western Europe, Do Not Understand the "Quirks" of America

I'm always interested in what non-Americans like about the US. Usually they preface their list with things they do not like. I find this odd given they tend to feel the strong urge to tell what they don't like first even when asked the opposite. If they don't like it first it's at the tail-end. After listing the positive they go ons saying "With that said, there are many things I dislike .... " Below are the most common, if not universal, issues non-Americans, usually Europeans, have with the US

• gun "culture"
• no universal healthcare
• "no" work-life balance and paid annual leave (Western Europe in general work less than 30 hrs per week)
• lack of paid maternity leave (they will then boast "we have 1 year paid maternity leave!")
• "only" two week (paid) vacation (instead of 1 month)
• apparently it's seen as unfair for the government to make its citizens do their own taxes
• no "free" university be it undergrad, masters or professional school (i.e. med, law)
• no "proper public transportation" (it's not enough that Chicago and NYC have comprehensive systems since they're not 'good enough')
• the government (America is seen as imperialistic)
• Orange Man Bad

I would argue that there isn't that much of a gun "culture" within the States besides guns existing, whether they're obtain legally or illegally. I will say there are gun enthusiasts though. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted. After that it's gang wars. The minority are deranged people gunning down people for either political reason or just because.

As with leftists in the US, Europeans in general are just simply scared of guns. I wouldn't say it's a phobia, but it's definitely a foreign concept to them hence their fascination and disgust with gun ownership in the US. A good number who travel to the US for leisure have visited gun ranges, so I cannot say they are phobic to it. 

I myself do not own a gun simply for the fact I never felt the need to have one, and that guns aren't a social norm in my family. There are a couple friends who at one time did own a gun which wasn't taboo, granted they were middle class and were relatively responsible people. I sorta wanted to follow them so I filled out the paperwork for a FOID card but for whatever reason never completed it.

The absence of universal healthcare really makes Europeans scratch their heads. Even after the explanation that although many are without healthcare, there is Medicaid for the poor and those with limited financial means, Medicare for the elderly and robust healthcare through ones employee. They sometimes then move the goal posts stating that access of decent healthcare through the employee makes the person a slave to the employee system. Oddly enough I find this complaint bizarre since I believe in the saying of "honest day's work for an honest day's pay." Europeans are just too married to the concept of universal healthcare.

I don't care much for the government complaint. Only a handful of non-Americas have truly studied the American government system whereas many of the complaints of those who haven't are just surface complaints anyways. 

The most amusing thing I find that non-Americans take issue with is Trump. Orange Man Bad. If American leftists refuse to understand why someone would for Trump, and then later think his presidency was a stain on everything good in the world, then I can't see why a non-American would have a better understanding of the Trump Era. After all, if the US MSM can paint him as many bad things the likes of BBC will probably double their efforts. Often times non-Americans are equally as daft as the leftist who froths from the mouth when Trump is mentioned. 

One comment by an American who also reflected on what made her irate about non-Americans is when they talked about Trump. "He's not your prime minister." She made a very good point. It's similar to when a Swedish man said he despised the US because of some random law he learned about in Minnesota or Idaho or whatever state it was. The law wasn't even used; it was an old law that no longer recognized. 

Many non-Americans think that the idea of the American Exceptionalism, though somewhat admirable in their eyes, is ultimately misguided. Why? They say that is creates horse blinders on Americans. To be perfectly honest, I don't really see how places like the UK are anymore worldly given their mentality is the complete opposite of the US - "we're not special" to a pessimistic attitude. I suppose this belief is why they have a hard time understanding the MAGA (Make American Great Again) concept. A British woman said that the slogan didn't make sense to her since America wasn't great for everyone in the past. Obviously she has very clue on what she's talking about.

If there's one thing I never bought about Europe is the idea they are wise while America is not. I'm not saying the US is wise, it's just that the whole "European spent hundreds of years solving human issues yet America doesn't listen" is almost pure posturing. All I've experienced was a lot of hot air on their part.

For all its faults, give me America over the UK any day. Its people - heck, even its government. It's not perfect since it's made up of imperfect humans. And yes, I don't mind the religious fervor in the US. 

Yes, "not all men."

Modern feminists or those who are tired of the rebuttal of "not all men" are [insert whatever men are being] that is uttered when the supposed patriarchy is the topic are practicing double standards. In fact, it's intellectual dishonesty. 

By using "not all men" modern day feminists are upset that men are being defensive. This is the same upset nature when people throw the "white privilege" card where white men, or even women, become defensive and say that they don't have such privilege. It is believed that by being defensive they are missing the point of what's being said; oddly enough by not understanding and accepting why men are upset modern day feminists skip over the "meet them where they're at" stage that is often practiced in therapy in fields like social work or clinical mental health. 

When people use a race or ethnicity nonchalantly in a critical way as in "black people need to focus more on education" to "black people need to raise their kids in a two parent household"; or even imply it like when Mark Cuban said that AAU basketball, which consists of a majority of black people, need to focus on fundamentals more and less on dunking, there is always a whoa whoa whoa wait a sec, What do you mean black people? or Are you saying that the culture found with AAU is inferior - that's racist. There's a double standard at play and I'm positive that those who accuse others of racism for making blanket statements are aware that the same technique is done to men, especially white men.

It's only fair that non-Woke men who hear blanket statements like "men are disgusting and are sexist", or hear things about the supposed patriarchy, that their emotions get riled up, get defensive and want to defend themselves. After all, their own sex is being criticized. Same thing with saying a white man has "white privilege." If a guy is just shooting the breeze at the local bar and says something like "women are too emotional" no doubt a modern day feminist would say that's an example of sexism and toxic masculinity. Of course, it's a general statement and typical, yes, depending on what country you're in women tend to be more emotional than men. 

Modern feminists want men to understand them yet it appears that the feminists refuse to understand men. It's as if they sorta kinda want men to literally not get upset by any blunt statement or presentation about dominating men and their beliefs. 

What modern feminists refuse to acknowledge is that men are not a monolithic entity, and when talks about patriarchy is brought up they expect men to nod their heads and agree that yes, the patriarchy is horrible. But modern feminists forget to point to an actual patriarchy. What are men to say? What state in what county and in what community? What country? There really isn't any specifics - just vagueness and anecdotal evidence here and there, especially if it's in the US. 

You see, as social liberals see the South and the Midwest as horrific places to live, especially for racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, modern feminists (a demographic within social liberalism) see men, in general, as sexist pigs. It's like when an actual racist in the US sees a black person and says quietly to himself That fuckin' nigger. So yes, I just did equate a modern feminist to an American racist - they share the same hate but just for different parties.

As one can see, the arrow usually goes one way, which has been the norm for the past number of year - give or take the last six or seven. You can utter a critical statement about the supposed patriarchy and  socially conservative beliefs, but you can't do that with certain demographics (i.e. racial and/or ethnic minorities, women, LGBT+) or else. White males are fair game alongside Christians when it comes to criticism, insults and condescension in the mind of modernism.

Differences between UK/Europe and The USA.

UK/Europe: 

• Protests and breaks into private property because fans of a soccer club's wealthy soccer/football owner "abused" the fans/supporters by seriously wanting the club to participate in a closed-system tournament consisting of the most competitive clubs across Europe.
• Protests against police even though their police system is known to have a relatively healthy relationship and perception with and amongst its everyday man, as inspired by police protests and race riots in the US.
• Protests against the US presidents that they don't like, or gives US politicians they don't like the cold shoulder, who visit their country while salivating over US presidents and politicians that they do like.
• Sends out sappy instagram post about staying in the EU i.e. David Beckham. 

Summary: Muh soccer/football. Muh EU. I love the NHS.

USA: 

• Protests and trespasses onto what is technically public property in the form of nation's Capitol building due to what they believe was a corrupted presidential election stolen by the winning party. 
• Protests against police and the jailing industrial complex (as they like to call it) who they believe have been treating minorities and people in general unfairly.
• Doesn't really care what politician visits America with the exception of Kim Jong-un.
• Broke away from what was considered at the time the world's superpower to form its own country to later overtake the unofficial title of world superpower. 

Summary: Muh fairness and government integrity. Muh social justice. Eagle says cacaaawww!

So, what can we eat?

It's been said eggs are bad.

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

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

It's been said tofu is bad.

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

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

I like your sport, not your fans.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Need You!

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

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

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

College athletics and football recruiting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shape of Water by Guillermo del Toro.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New link.

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

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

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

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

A poster named Spaghetti wrote -

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

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

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

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

The boogey-man that is the alt-right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Haley continues -

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

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

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

 Phew! Right? Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is some paranoia taking. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Better than the previous quote at least.

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

 Where on earth do you even get this from?

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

 Oh puh-lease.

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

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

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

Free Education: America and Western Europe.

Money Grows on Trees

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

Yale
Harvard
Princeton
Cornell
UPenn
Columbia

Johns Hopkins
UChicago
Duke
Northwestern
Stanford
Notre Dame
MIT
Caltech

Berkeley
Wisconsin
Illinois
UNC-CH
Vanderbilt
Virginia
UCLA

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

Americans Don't Save

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

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

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

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

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

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

An atheist is still an atheist.

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

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

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