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.

The dark side of Social Matter

Social Matter, in my mind, provides fine neo-reactionary (NRX) commentary on modernism. But sometimes There are flashes of darkness that bother me.

Just recently, Myth of the 20th Century, one of the site's podcasts was talking about the thoughts' of Theodore John Kacyznsk, otherwise known as the Unabomber, on the progress and growth of technology, how pervasive it is, and how this progress is somewhat of an illusion. As technology advances, there are many negative effects of it. The podcast tries to give credit where credit is due and I mostly agree with their sentiments. It's just that some comments in the comment section were, at the very least, disturbing.

Poster AJM writes:

"If Ted hadn’t done what he did nobody would be reading or talking about his work. He is the author of one of the most advertised political manifestos there ever was. He was reaching out to people that desire radical destruction of the system. He wasn’t reaching out to people that would be turned off by his tactics.

You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs — historical heroes nearly every last one of them are killers. The only difference between him and them is that he is not venerated."

Apparently the Unabomber was some sort of "freedom fighter" in this person's mind, sort of like a how leftists view ISIS as "freedom fighters", though the sane call them terrorists (and the Unabomber even admitted that he was causing terrorism in order to change "the system").

Other incidents were a whiff of admiration of Nazism, the targeting of Jews as the main players of modernism and my own brushes of unsavory manners against a fogey who was a white nationalist.

You just gave ammo to modernism.

Poster Melkite over at fisheaters just gets miffed when people are critical of same-sex pairings raising kids. Why? I remember him saying he has same-sex attraction. Must we be so damn sensitive to the homos and the bis? 

I posted a pic of a young boy showing his "adoption cake." He was all smiles. I was glad for him - anything better than being in foster care or an orphanage. But he was adopted by two guys. No they are not brothers - they're "lovers." I wrote that at least the boy now has a warm bed, food and clean water. Melkite wrote, "And, at least he didn't get adopted out to a heterosexual couple that would abuse or neglect him.  Not having both a mother and a father is not ideal, but it's also not the worst thing in the world."

Are you kidding me? How do you know that this seemingly "perfect" gay couple won't? (Not saying that they will.) 

"Well at least he's in a loving home!"
"Yea, well thank goodness he wasn't adopt by a hetero couple who tames anacondas!"

I bring in that gay couples raising a child is not ideal. Melkite brings up the very worst of the hetero couple.

This exchange reminds me of a political cartoon I (thought I saved) saw a few years back which depicted two guys hugging each each other, one crying, because their adoption papers were denied while the other half of the cartoon showed a hetero couple, the father fat wearing a wife beater staring cruelly at the new child, the mother drinking, the house filthy with a cross shown on the wall. The gay couple's house? Clean; the two were dressed in button downs and sweaters. No cross to be seen. Oh the dichotomy.

USMNT fails to qualify for 2018 World Cup.

2-1 Trinidad & Tobago. Disappointing. On paper it was a very winnable game. They only needed to draw to be qualified as well.

There are many theories on why it happened, both relating to the overall soccer culture found within the US and the staff and team that went to Trinidad & Tobago. Here are my thoughts.

1. There was no passion from most of the players.
2. There was no leadership from any veteran players.
3. Bruce Arena didn't push the right buttons this time.
4. It has little to do with MLS being seen as a retirement league for the aging foreign players.
5. It has little to do with the MLS being a closed league versus a pro/reg league.
6. It has little to do with the saturation of sports that kids are exposed to when they're young
7. It has little to do with the lack of inner city kids playing the sport due to their poverty.
8. It has much more to do with the soccer development pyramid.
9. It has little to do with lack of fan passion.
10. MLB, NBA and the NFL aren't stealing players away.
11. The anti-Americanism has surfaced, full head, once again from foreigners commenting on this event.

If anyone has disagreements, especially with #s 4-10, leave a comment and explain why. 

EDIT: You can't make this stuff up. This hits on my #11. One discussion went that the pay to play system is proof of greedy capitalism, locking out a lot of potential talent, which is parallel to America's healthcare system where you have to pay to receive care. The people involved all agreed that this is why America's soccer system fails - or at least why USMST lost to T&T - it's because of greed. Evil capitalism. Unlike in countries like Trinidad & Tobago where healthcare is free (though it needs much work it's on the right path, said a Trinidadian) and since Trinidad & Tobago has no pay to play it's proof that all is right in such countries, hence the USMNT losing.

My thoughts on the movement to replace Columbus Day with Indegenious Day.

It's utter bullshit. Look, without Columbus Western Civilization wouldn't be what it is. He's a major player. Native Americans? Hate to say it but they're a damn unsophisticated group. Seriously, what the fuck have they given the world in terms of inventions, literature and culture? My parents' ethnic tribe can be found all over the world yet Native Americans are mostly found in the US. They haven't moved.

Removing monuments and pushing to rename holidays because the person commemorated had ties to slavery or genocide is some puritanical "holy" pathology.

As a child of immigrants and as a non-white, those who push and support this movement are basically fulfilling the old "my child came back for Thanksgiving break and refused to celebrate it because of the killings of the indigenous people" archetype. If the powers that be decide to change it the Native Americas are still an unsophisticated group of low-achievers. It does nothing to get them out of poverty.


#ChiefIlliniwek
#ChiefWahoo
#Blackhawks
#Redskins

Leah Libresco's data is questioned because she's religious.

A few days ago atheist turned Christian turned Catholic, Leah Libresco, wrote an opinion piece about gun control after the Las Vegas Shooting massacre. She confessed she was a gun control advocate but after looking at the data is now questioning her position. Leah concludes that gun control may not be the answer.

Now this has somewhat triggered people who support gun control if not an outright ban. In her piece she gives data supporting her new stance. One can refute her data and her conclusions, but some chose a different route. Some are looking elsewhere and that elsewhere is Leah's religious conversion. It's been a very common card to pull among secularists/non-believers/humanists/atheists (whatever you call them nowadays) to run down an opposing party's credentials or aesthetics. Here's that rundown:

1. Is the person fat?
2. Did the person graduate from a tier-1 university?
3. Is the person religious?
4. Does the person have well-fitting clothes?
5. Is that person white?
6. Is that person a man?

Now Leah is not fat. She graduated from Yale at the undergraduate level. I don't believe she's fashionable but she is religious. Religious. She's ethnically Jewish and she's a female.

But being a graduate of Yale and a former atheist won't get her off the hook though. There are those who see her religious conversion as a detriment to clear thinking. See below.

I believe the thinking goes if Leah was still an non-believer she would've supported gun control or bans. This is how the atheistic world measures their counterparts. If you believe in one form of hokus pokus then you're susceptible to believe in another.

Atheists should just have a banner saying: "If you're a Christian your thoughts may not be taken seriously even if your written or oral arguments do not mention your faith."

The left and the secular world will find something that they don't like about you in order to dismiss you.

When Richard Spencer showed up on national media he took some leftists by surprise because he didn't fit what the left thinks of a white supremacist: though white, he was well-dressed and well-spoken.

When Ryan T. Anderson was the hot topic among the same-sex "marriage" MSM chatter some couldn't dismiss him outright. One opposer acknowledged Anderson's fine academic credentials with nodding to his public speaking abilities, saying, and I paraphrase, "Though you may have stellar degrees .... ".

Same thing with Ted Cruz when he was slaying leftists. Cruz is a non-white, Ivy League graduate and attorney. But they did go after his kids where one political cartoonist portrayed them monkeys being "pulled" by their father.

Though not having a first-rate academic CV, the left was a bit confused by Marco Rubio. He's Cuban but is well-spoken and not fat. His suits are decent fitting.

Leftists and secularists will judge you on these things because it's what they want for their kids or what they are themselves. DC, NYC, Chicago, LA etc., if you can fit in aesthetically, as well as CV-wise, in those cities then the humanists are left scratching their heads. "How can a well-dressed, well-spoken and well-educated person be a hold stances that go against the current leftist beliefs let alone be religious?"

You know, being on the "right side of history" and a being "Bright" - all that good stuff.

Askthebigot moves in new direction + new link.

Katy Faust's site, askthebigot, is adopting a new angle on advocating for real  marriage and for children who were raised in a same-sex household. She gathers their stories to show what a same-sex parent household cannot give a child: a household with two, loving parents of the opposite sex. Check it out.

NOTE: Those who do not see the nuclear family as, well, nuclear say that you technically only need one good, loving parent to succeed - even better if it's two people of the same sex in a relationship raising you. It's too bad that (A) common sense and (B) solid social science studies have shown that kids being raised in a two parent opposite sex household fair better than both. Of course there are exceptions since I personally know a handful of my peers that were brought up in single parent households that are married or soon will be and  have career success, but here's the thing: they all expressed disappointment in their parents' splitting and had their grandparents fill in where the missing parent would be.

To add to this there is a belief that has rolled out of the mouths that despise the nuclear family, which is good because the cat is somewhat out of the bag: that a father isn't necessary (hello third wave feminism). Does the feminist have the audacity, or even the feminist mom who has a husband, turn to the fathers or their husband and say they're truly optional, and then turn to their kid(s) and say that their father can be nullified by (A) just her own love and (B) a person of the opposite sex acting as "mom #2"? I bet not.