Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.

21.8.15

Web Of A Different Color

"Oh what tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!"
 - Walter Scott, Marmion (1808)

Yes, folks, the bullshit gets deeper and deeper.

I don't often comment on burning headlines, because most of it is pure, unadulterated bullshit.  But this one caught my eye because it is a symptom of much deeper bullshit...much deeper.

This guy, Shaun King, was so buried in "white guilt," and presumably unable to make anything of himself without using some secondary physical trait, that he felt it necessary to claim not only that he is black (specifically half Negroid and half Caucasoid), but that he is a victim of hate.

There is story is symptomatic of so many things wrong with Western "culture" right now that I hardly know where to begin.  A few minutes' thought peels so many layers off of this phenomenon that one gets lost in all the convolutions.  And like the onion metaphor implies, one is moved to tears.

Decades ago, it was black people passing as white to get "white benefits" that made headlines.  Fair enough, since the segregation in the US was quite nasty.  I'm old enough to remember "colored" water fountains and "colored" seating areas.  That is a cultural artifact that is well left behind.

But the pendulum has swung so far to the other side that now white people feel the need to pass as black in order to cash in on "black benefits."

This is NOT equality, which was supposedly the goal of 1960s cultural engineering and desegregation.  The idea was to offer equal opportunity to all regardless of racial or cultural backgrounds.  However, liberal media and gatekeepers have been so successful that Shaun King is the result.  And if there is one, there are many more.

A quick read of the linked article reveals a partial goodie list: a "black-only scholarship," a donation from Black Conservative Fund PAC for proof of "blackness," sympathy and Victimhood for being the target of "hate crime, a leadership position in a "black sympathy" movement.  Wow, just think what one would hear if the word "black" were replaced with "white."

Imagine, if you will, Mel Gibson (in place of Oprah Winfrey) was offering "white-only" scholarships, or the White Conservatives Fund PAC offered donations for proof of "whiteness," or a white person beaten and taunted by blacks claimed victimhood.  Just imagining the liberal howls is deafening!

Yes, folks, we are all victims - victims of a form of social engineering that is dividing people by class and race, and the amazing thing is that they have convinced a lot of otherwise smart people that this is not racist!

With a black man sitting in the Oval Office in Washington, and a black neuosurgeon running on the Republican ticket (and doing fairly well, too), and blacks filling many important social positions, I think it is high time to drop the pretenses and shun the liberal media who tries so hard to convince us that each race is getting more pie than the others.

It is racist, divisive and completely untrue.  In fact of the matter, we are all equally screwed by a system that is raping all of us of our cultural and financial heritage.  We all have the same economy.  We all serve the same Masters.  We all are having our families torn apart by these evil bastards.

There is no black, white, brown, yellow or any other color variation.  There is only slave meat for the System.  We are all nothing but entertaining fools for slavering, wicked old bastards who use their wealth and toys to keep us all at each other's throats so we don't slit theirs.  And they are laughing all the way to the counting house.

I don't hold Shaun King entirely to fault.  After all, he's just trying to get a bigger slice of pie like everyone else.  That makes him as much a victim as all the rest of us.  His biggest fault is not walking away when he got outed.  He's still trying to keep the cash cow on life support, and digging himself deeper into the steaming pile of bullshit.

Hell, if he jumped up and said, "Look what I have to do to get ahead in this country," and then started the White Lives Matter movement, he's already be a bigger hero than he was a few days ago.  Instead, he's trying to paddle a boat that has already sunk.

The Big Issue here is the game that is being played at a very high level that keeps us all chasing illusions.  They keep moving the "prize" around and then watch with sick amusement as we all scramble over each other's heads to get it - only to find it's been moved again.

All of this bullshit keeps us so distracted that we don't have time to sit and ponder what is really going on.  We are so busy screaming and pointing at other people's slice of pie that we are completely missing the fact that there is no pie.  It's all a cruel and depraved hoax put on by a bunch of hollow, desperately sick souls that are so bored with their toys that teasing the rest of us is the only entertainment left for them.  They are nothing but bullies who have gotten so good at the game that they can make us fight each other while they sit across the street and laugh.

Folks, we've got to change.  We can't keep going on like this.  If we don't wake up and start fighting the real enemy, we will all destroy each other.  And when we do, the evil bastards will turn on each other, until there is nothing left of the human potential.

It is well past time for a little critical thinking.  Start peeling some onions and watch the tears flow.  It is a sad and wasted culture we live in, and we have ALL been victims of a monstrous crime.  There's one catch.

We have all been taught that if you are a victim, you can win the jackpot.  Put a hot cup of coffee in your lap and get burned - McMoney will come your way.

The crime we are victims of, however, is so huge, so depraved, so horrifying, that we can never be compensated for our loss.  All we can do is walk away and hope that we have learned a very valuable communal lesson: don't let the loonies run the loony bin.

Turn off the TeeVee.  Put down the cage liner (that's newspaper in regular-speak).  Get out of the loony-versities.  Stop chasing the elusive pie.  None of it is real.  It is all a phantom created by Disney to appear like something real.

Shaun King is a tragedy of pie-chasing.  It should serve to wake us up to what has been done to us.  There are not privileges, prizes or pie at the end of the rainbow.  Ask anyone who has ever touched a rainbow.  They know.  Whether your rainbow is black, LGBT or any other false "community," you have been deceived.

Get out while you still have your sanity!

15.8.15

Report From The Eye Of The Storm

Return with us now to the thrilling theme of "traveler versus tourist," a metaphor we here at the Far Side Global Headquarters - deep in the jungles of Borneo - have adopted for our worldview.

The reader may think of this column as a follow-on to our last screed called, "Who Is More The Fool?"  In today's edition, we will explore "traveler versus tourist" as it applies to "diversity."

As we have developed our metaphor, we have shown that a traveler enters new realms of culture and experience as an observer and reporter.  The traveler attempts to meld as much as possible into the surroundings and taste the sweet and bitter of the foreign world.  The traveler does not judge nor discriminate.  The traveler understands that the surrounding culture has developed over spans of time and he seeks to understand why.

The tourist, on the other hand, brings his culture with him.  He seeks to impose his own norms and standards on the surrounding land.  He is the evangelist, the one who thinks his way is better, or at least more comfortable, and so forces conformity in order to feel less threatened.

In terms of mainstream labels, we may think of travelers as conservatives (seeking to conserve), while tourists are liberals (seeking to liberate).  The conservative wishes to conserve what is found in any given place, while the liberal wishes to change everything to suit some "greater good."

A traveler is conscious of his tracks and tries to minimize his impact on the surroundings.  Instead, he absorbs the local flora and fauna, making deep mental records and spending great amounts of time pondering and examining the context in which he finds himself.

This is not to say the traveler accepts everything at face value or is naive.  If he finds himself in a land where ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice are the norm, he does not wait around to examine the roots of these beliefs, he simply steps quietly but quickly to the exit.

On the other hand, we have the tourist.  The tourist is deathly afraid of having any experience that is outside his zone of comfort.  He is convinced that local cuisine is filthy and infested, and so brings his comfortable McFoods with him.  He is convinced that local accommodations are rat-eaten and sub-standard, and so brings his Holiday-Innian experience with him.  He believes the locals are heathens that must be converted to whatever system of belief he holds dear.  He criticizes the local customs and beliefs as ridiculous and beneath his consideration.  To a tourist, everything is wrong but his own standards.

In the past three years, I have found myself in a very curious position, straddling the traveler-tourist paradigm.

I have been deeply involved in building a "western" style arts center in Jakarta, where the owner has wanted to bring "western" style shows to the city.  On the other hand, I have been dealing with "western" companies wanting to break into the Indonesian market with their wares.  On both sides of the equation, I have run head-long into the tourist mentality.  The locals want international shows, but are not willing to learn and accommodate international standards.  The foreign companies want to enter the local market without accommodating local styles of doing business.  The locals think that "international standard" is the way something looks, and the outsiders think that "international standard" means the way we do it back home.

It is the perfect storm with your humble traveler standing at precisely the geodetic center of the storm.

On the one hand, I want to help the locals bring these massive foreign shows, and want to teach them the styles and methods of doing it.  On the other hand, I know the mentality of the foreign shows, who expect a certain modus operandi on the receiving end.

It is a delicate situation in which your humble traveler finds himself.  I believe both sides are right.  I know how these mass-market shows operate - god knows I've helped create enough of them.  On the other hand, I know the the locals have developed their style of doing business over centuries of physical isolation from the rest of the world, being a chain of islands fairly remote from any mainland.

For your humble reporter, it is both gleefully fun and infinitely frustrating.  On the one hand, I want to help the locals fit into the international market they so desperately want to join, and on the other hand, I want to help the foreigners fit into the market they do desperately want to join.

The immovable object meets the irresistible force.  It is not an enviable position, since I have had my share of both sides railing against me.  Both sides expect me to be able to change the other, yet my personal mentality is that both sides are completely right.

Such is the life of a traveler.

It would be so easy to be a tourist.  I could force whichever side I chose onto the other.  What I have chosen, however, is to find some way to blend the two, in the hopes of making both better for the experience.

In point of fact, I am in the position of believing that the "western" way of doing shows is the right way - in its context.  And I believe that the Indonesian way of doing business is right - in its context.  When the two contexts meet, one can begin to appreciate the fun I have had for the past three years.

I must become a travelist or a tourer, but in either case I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.

Centuries ago, Marco Polo was the first Westerner to record his travels in Indonesia - specifically in the area of central Sumatera around the modern city of Medan - where he met the Batak people.  In his wake, Lutheran missionaries followed and were slaughtered and occasionally eaten by the Batak.  That is, until a fellow by the name of Ludwig Ingwer Nommensen showed up and converted a large number of Batak to Lutheranism.  To this day, the Batak have a unique church (HKBP) that separates them from all other Indonesians.  In simplistic terms, the church is western Lutheranism blended with the Batak language and sensibilities.  A new culture created from the blending of two otherwise clashing ones.

It is possible to make a hybrid culture without surrendering the more profound elements of the progenitors.  However, it is not an enviable position to be at the crux of the effort.  It is akin to hanging on to the blades of a blender, trying to maintain one's identity while at the same time trying to make the rest of the mix into a homogeneous mass.  All sides want what the other has without surrendering any part of what they bring, or accepting any part of what they want.

Your humble traveler stands at the center of the plains of Geddon, amidst the final conflagration, and tries to maintain enough individuality to report on the destruction of both sides.  Perhaps I will be slaughtered and eaten, perhaps I will find that happy medium and become a patron saint.  Either way, I will destroy something and build something else.

History is yet to be written.

But one thing I am assured of...I am a traveler.

Post Scriptum - when I first arrived in Indonesia, I had a Batak girlfriend.  One Christmas, I followed her family to the HKBP church.  When it came time for Communion, I went to the front with her.  The first priest looked at me, then asked her (in Batak language), "Does he understand (this)?"  I responded (in the Batak language), "Yes, I do."  He shot a glance at me and his jaw went slack.  Then he passed me down the line without being slaughtered.

That is what travelers do.

10.8.15

Who Is More The Fool?

I am unabashedly and unapologetically a straight, white male.  I just want to make that perfectly clear.

I will not bow to Political Correctness, nor will I wallow in "White Guilt".  I am what I am by accident of birth and cultural conditioning (plus a smattering of independent thinking), and I see no reason to feel guilty for something someone else did, nor because I have worked hard to achieve a modicrum of success in my career, relying on my talents and education, and taking advantage of opportunities that have come along.

I have prejudices for which I will not apologize.  If I see a mangy, snarling dog eyeing me with less than friendly intent, I do not stick around to confirm or deny my prejudice, earned from experience, I quickly find a safe path.

In the same way, I have had less than cordial experiences with certain groups of people.  Because of my experience, I avoid contact with those groups.  In fact, my prejudices are based on remarkably similar experiences with certain groups over time, space and context.  Odds are, my experience tells me, that any future contact will have the same outcome as before.

My prejudices are earned and serve as a protective feature of my personality.  i am open to new and more positive experiences with those groups, but I am always alert to signs that I will be bitten if I continue to engage with them.

On one occasion, I was riding with a friend of the "enlightened liberal" persuasion.  We were behind a car on the freeway that was swerving and dodging in and out of traffic.  My friend cursed the driver, and I simply said, "Asian."

He chastised me for using "gross generalizations" and labeling people without knowing the facts.  I just pointed out that I had experience with Asian drivers.

A short time later, we passed the swerving car and my friend laughed.  I looked at him, and he said, "He's Asian."  I did not feel the need to say, I told you so."

Having worked in the entertainment industry all my life, I have had broad experience with just about every gradation of gender and sexual orientation.  I have no problem whatsoever hugging and kissing other men, nor watching lovers of the same gender cavorting together.  However, I am a confirmed heterosexual.  That is my preference, get over it.

For most of my adult life, I have been chided and cajoled, railed against and teased by friends and family who are of the unthinking liberal types.  They have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to convince me that I am a chauvinistic misogynist who does not embrace "diversity" nor edit my thoughts to conform with the mass mind.  This while they live in pearly white suburban nests and I have traveled to over 40 countries - living in five of them - learning languages, eating local cuisines and celebrating the splendid variety of viewpoints, traditions and environments.  None of which my "diverse" family and friends would abide.

Why, I've had one wife of Apache-Mexican decent, and my current wife is Indonesian of Chinese-Javanese decent.  Most of my "diverse" friends and family have only been with white Protestant mates and partners.  Yet, I am the one guilty of not being "diverse" and of being "white".

About this white thing...

A number of years ago, the convenient idiot known as Jesse jackson declared the Negroid race was composed of a "black rainbow".  Probably the one thing on which I agree with him.  There are many shades of Negroid.  In fact, what Indonesians call "black" is simply someone with a dark tan who likely works outdoors for a living.

I believe that there is a "white rainbow", too.  I am not really "white," I am more of a pinkish color with spots ranging from yellowish to quite black, making me really a member of all skin colors.  People from the Mediterranean region of Europe are "olive" skinned.  The Germanic and Scandinavian people are a sort of "bronze" color.  The British are famously "gray."  This would appear to refute any argument that there is a "white" race.

I also take issue with being called a "Caucasian."  As a clear genetic descendant of the Celts and Vikings (red hair, blue eyes, pale skin, fiery temper), and based on recent genetic studies, my people did not originate in the Caucasus Mountains of Russia.

As for the charge of being misogynistic, well...I just have to laugh.  Being a dyed-in-the-wool heterosexual, I hardly hate women.  I find the company of women to be most enjoyable and I celebrate the differences we have.  Vive la difference!

That charge, in particular, came from a feminist lesbian who was paired with a woman trying her level best to look and act like a man.  So if she was so against the way I enjoy the company of "feminine" women, why did she choose a "male" partner?  Obviously, even homosexuals still find comfort in gender roles, even if they prefer other "equipment."

One reason I am labelled a misogynist is because I firmly believe that abortion is murder.  It is murder as surely as lining up a row of imbeciles and mowing them down is murder.  Just because a foetus cannot survive on its own (yet), or has not achieved fully cognition (yet) does not make it a "lump of tissue" to be removed.  It is still a human being, as much as the row of imbeciles, who likewise have not achieved full cognition and depend on others for survival.  The choice with pregnancy comes before it happens, not after.  If I chose to put my hand into a fire, I cannot blame the fire for getting burned.  That is its nature.

In fact, that I love and tolerate my family and friends who are unable to think clearly proves that I am "diverse."  That I have gone more places, eaten strange foods, learned new languages (14 to date), reveled in foreign cultures and traditions, while they have stayed in the safe white suburban nests is conclusive evidence that I celebrate the human condition in all its forms.  If, in my experience, I have learned certain prejudices, then no one can say that those prejudices are wrong.

As for "white guilt," well, guess what?  I will not partake.  My ancestors received the crossed arrows from the Comanche and my former wife and my daughter are part Apache.  Some of my ancestors owned slaves, while others ran underground railroads helping them escape.  Some fought for US independence, and others for Texas.  I personally am an artists who strives to create beauty and meaning out of chaos and destruction.

I don't deny that some "white" folks engaged in some bad things, but I did not take part in, nor have any say in them.  Nor would I participate if given the opportunity today.  At the same time, I think we can make a pretty comprehensive list of terrible things done by Negroids and Mongoloids, too.  Terrible acts are not limited to any one group or race.  "White" folks have done some pretty despicable things, but they have also done some rather amazing things.  So have Negroids and Mongoloids.  Every race, religion, political affiliation, culture, and any other division you can think of have all been guilty of terrible things.

Do I feel guilty for any of it?  No.  Because I didn't partake in any of it.  Just as I cannot bear guilt for Adam and Eve snacking in the Garden, nor can a bear guilt for the actions of folks who happen to share certain physical traits with me.  My attitude has always been, and has been borne out by my life story, to live and let live.

I refuse to succumb to pressure to conform to "diversity" and "political correctness" and "white guilt."  If you want to associate only with those who agree in every way with your worldview, then please do.  I prefer to dive into the world and experience its glorious spectrum.

Post Scriptum - For those who take issue with my use of the words Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, please see this link, because I will not apologize for formal taxonomic terms, either.

4.8.15

Metaphysically Conjoined Twins

What are culture and morality?  The definitions of these two concepts have vexed philosophers and theologians for most of recorded history.  For a great many centuries, they were consigned to the realms of the secular and theorlogical, respectively.  Yet, they were inextricably united in the whole that we commonly call civilization.

At one time, the civil and theological powers were bound together, with one reinforcing the other.  In many cases, they were the same force, as in the millennium where the Roman Church ruled the throne, or even today were Shyaria has surfaced among certain political forces, so that secular and religious authority cannot be isolated.

As a species, we seem to have arrived at a unique nexus in history.  Largely beginning with the Protestant Reformation and into the Enlightenment Period (for Western culture, at least), a process was begun to separate the conjoined twins of culture and morals that is having profound consequences now 500 years later.  In the case of then and now, the upheaval is predicated on new forms of communication, and the resulting loss of control by the elite classes, the Priesthood, if you will.
Indeed, we must call them the Priesthood.  “They” is too vague and undefined.  What we are dealing with is a group of elites, who for centuries have wielded the combined swords of culture and morals.  Having watched their authority erode from the time of Gutenberg until now, we know from documents such as the 29 Protocols that this Priesthood is trying to reset society.  By creating a ‘culture’ where anything goes and there seem to be no rules or authority at all, the Priesthood is trying to bring civilization to its knees to use the opportunity to re-establish their wide-ranging controls over humanity. 

We are witnessing this deconstruction right now.  The crumbling secular structures of government, police powers, religion, education, and so forth, is leading inevitably towards a moment of catharsis in which we will collectively cry out for some authority to step in and save us from ourselves.  Enter the currently deposed Priesthood, who have sought to regain their former status as rulers and arbitrators since the moment we unwashed masses were able to own and read a copy of Gutenberg’s Bible.

Since the Enlightenment, Western culture has strived to locate a moral code and authority in Nature.  By taking the moral authority away from monarchs and religious institutions, they were forced to find some new force in Nature that established and enforced a set of Universal Morals.  The secular Western states and legal systems began to evolve as moral arbiters, legislating what God once declared through secret revelations to religious authorities.

In other words, the Priesthood was deposed from their central role of wielding cultural, secular and financial power over all aspects of life.  They were replaced by Jeffersonian concepts of Universal Equality and Sufferage, though the realization of those ideals is still evolving.

In some cases, moral authority was bestowed on society’s institutions by Nature’s God – a sort of amorphous and non-sectarian power.  In other cases, such as Soviet Communism, all religious authority was to be purged and a moral code was to be forced on society by a central authority, whose job it was to become obsolete and fade away.  Still others, such as Japan, Thailand and Britain, maintain a monarch invested with both secular and religious authority, though of necessity, the role of the monarch has been elevated to a point where they have almost no day-to-day control, due to their lofty natures.

In some cases, such as Russia, there is a swing back to a more central role of the Church in secular affairs, in the person of Putin and his cronies.  In the US and Indonesia, there are many voices proclaiming that those countries were founded on religious authority, though those voices are very wrong.  The mistake comes in not understanding what a republic is, and how a republic seeks to establish a core set of “rights” (a modern replacement for morals) that cannot be undone or modified by the governmental power.

In concept, these “rights” are to be upheld and enforced by all society.  Every member agrees that these “rights” are bestowed by some higher authority than government (undefined).  In practice, though, “rights” are malleable and mutable.  They are subject to changing moral standards.  They have become much closer to “privileges” than “rights”.  A perfect example is the “right” to bear arms, or the “right” to free speech.  Almost as fast as those “rights” are declared, people begin finding occasions when they are seemingly inappropriate, and so immediately begin the process of creating “privileges” out of “inalienable rights”.

Since the Enlightenment, we have found ourselves trying to define Universal Morality.  Is there indeed a set of rules that apply in all times and places?  We claim that it is wrong to kill, but almost in the same breath call self-defense an important exception to that rule.  We claim it is always wrong to steal, yet in the very next paragraph authorize taxes and civil forfeiture. 
In other words, cut loose from the religious authority, morality becomes a kind of contrast ratio, where a a sliding scale occasionally brings certain “rights” into view, while others fall outside the framework.  Relativism takes over and suddenly morality becomes defined by each and every individual’s circumstance and context.  What makes this unacceptable, though, is the fact that one can be punished in the future for a moral choice in the past that was within the framework then, but is not now.  This retroactive feature of the moral ration of relativism is what places us at the nexus, where we find ourselves now.

In other words, it is immoral for someone to torture and kill without some kind of socially defined process, unless you wear a uniform and/or carry some sort of “badge” that gives license to ignore the rules.

So we find ourselves at the crucial moment in history: the ancient Priesthood is fomenting chaos in order to insert themselves back into the throne;  secular power has been divorced from the “higher authority” that once kept it in check; the individual is without moral compass because the framework is constantly sliding around the scale of right and wrong.

Our civilization is coming to a mighty clash – a perfect storm of immovable objects and irrisistable forces – where the very old, the old, the new, and the very new will battle it out using the unique creation of the internet.  The result, in a century or so, will be the first truly Universal Moral Code, acceptable to all individuals. 

In the meantime, however, it will be nasty.  There will be many casualties as the various camps battle it out over who will ultimately control this new authority.  Some, such as the Religion, Illuminati and Capitalist camps, have suffered severe blows and are fighting back like cornered and wounded animals.  This epoch may end in a revolutionary conflagration that will leave nothing standing of our cultural past.

What emerges from this unique period in history will be the ruling paradigm for centuries to come, and we likely will not recognize the outcome.  Most of us reading these words will probably not be around to see the result.

However, we are obligated by our duty to future generations to begin talking about this battle and profoundly exploring the conceptual framework that will emerge from it.  In the quest to destroy something old, there must be a plan for replacing it.  This is the vital part of the current culture that is conspicuous in its absence.  We are at a unique point in history, with a unique tool called the internet.  Ultimately, we have two choices: destroy everything, or create something.

It is quite obvious that the old paradigms are doing a sufficient job of destroying things, so it is up to the rest of us to start creating