Fatwa On Joy

It's that time of year again when supposedly "Muslim" trouble-makers run around the country destroying private property and claiming Indonesia is an Islamic country.  By that I mean that certain groups claiming to be "defenders of the faith" decide that Christmas decorations and costumes are offensive and take it upon themselves to harm others in the name of God.

Not that it is all that unusual.  Private holiday displays are attacked even in the US.  A bunch of Texas busybodies tried to ban a poster featuring Charlie Brown's Christmas images.  A court had to rule that it was OK as long as it was clear that the poster was produced by a private individual and not a public organization.

In the case of Indonesia. the Ministry of Religion (MUI) issued a fatwa (religious edict) banning private companies from requiring their employees to wear Santa hats and other festive items.  This led the police chiefs in several regions to issue circulars claiming the fatwa was law.  Based on that, the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI), a quasi-official bunch of busybodies, marched into malls in Surabaya (large East Java city) under police escort to confiscate and destroy private property.

This, in turn, led to the National Police Chief ordering the regional police to stand down, while at the same time sending a representative to the MUI to ensure that fatwas are not issued as law, but only guidance for Islamic followers.

The FPI is notable for destroying bars and entertainment businesses during Ramadhan and extorting money and food from Christian churches to stop them from interfering with services, especially during Christmas time.  They are, in effect, a radical enforcement group for Shariah law, which has no legal standing in Indonesia.  The nation's constitution recognizes five religions as having equal protection under the law.

Anyone with any sense knows that Santa hats are about as religious as Charlie Brown cartoons.  As I wrote yesterday, most of the icons and traditions of Christmas are actually based on very ancient Roman and German festivals.  Most holiday displays, especially in malls and other business establishments, are little more than enticements to spend money and are as far removed from Christian dogma as one can get.

At the root of all this is the belief that dominant groups of people have the right not to be offended, or in the case of political correctness, that overly sensitive and highly vocal minorities have the same right.  The fact is that if the world tried to ameliorate every possible offense, the world would simply cease to function.

Numbnuts, such as the FPI and the ass that drove a truck into a crowd of holiday shoppers in Berlin obviously don't read their own book.  It states quite clearly:

“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

In other words, mind your own business and leave everyone else alone. There are plenty of Christians, atheists and what-nots who could take this to heart, as well.

The frequent reader here knows that I have no truck with organized religion.  I find the history of violence, dogmatic mind control and division to be offensive to a Waking Life of Reason.

By the same token, I find religious holiday displays fascinating and a great opportunity to enjoy and learn from a variety of cultures and histories, from Dia de los Muertos to the ogah-ogoh during Nyepi to the anamatronic Christmas tableaus in the windows of Sakowitz in my youth.

In the end, it is the rich diversity of cultures and traditions that make life worth living.  The ability of one to one's own holidays is predicated on allowing others the same courtesy, and in so doing seize the opportunity to find the kernels of truth that lie at the heart of all traditions.  One doesn't have to be Christian to enjoy a cute salesgirl wearing foam-rubber antlers, or the bizarre Hindu art of an ogoh-ogoh, or the intricate display of an ofrenda, just as one doesn't have to be Muslim to enjoy the flowing calligraphy of Quranic verses or the geometric pleasures of mosaic panels.

In an ideal world, people are not only allowed but encouraged to put up their holiday displays.  But more to the point, the rest of us should be open to the pure enjoyment of the festivities and use the opportunity to expand our knowledge and experience of the world's cultural wealth.  The mindless destruction of others' traditions achieves nothing but hatred and belies the weakness of one's own culture and beliefs.

Live and let live is a simple yet profound philosophy.  In granting others the room to enjoy their lives, we receive in turn the room to enjoy our own.  Denying any one group's right to enjoy their culture forces all of us into a life of prolonged paranoid defensiveness and removes the possibility that any of us can experience joy.

Is that any way to live?

Dear Millennials/Snowflakes/SJWs/Numbnuts

Among the copious flaws in the...well, for lack of a better term let's call it thinking of Millennials, Snowflakes and so-called Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) is that they appear to believe that Human Rights are a limited resource, and in order to hand some to one group, they must take it from another.  Sorry kids, that is not the way it works.

Human Rights apply to everyone, no matter what set of divisions you care to place on them.  In order for you to enjoy your rights, you must allow every other belief system the same courtesy.  Additionally, there is no such thing as special rights from some "protected" groups.  We all get the same rights, be they expression, speech, religion, or lack thereof.

For instance, the right to practice any religion you want means that you must also respect the right of atheists to reject all of them.  The right to free speech means not only that you must allow everyone to express their opinions, but you must allow those who so choose to be silent, as well.

Diversity is a thing.  It refers to a broad spectrum of creatures, races, colors, and beliefs.  Diversity means that a great number of possibilities exist, whether one chooses to like it or not.  Diverse ecosystems refer to areas where a great many species co-exist in an interdependent balance.  It doesn't mean that lions are favored over gazelles by legal barriers and regulations that favor the lions.  Lions have as much right to chase gazelles, as the gazelles have to run, kick and hide from the lions.  Neither is right, neither is wrong.  It just is.

Tolerance is the acceptance that life is diverse.  Some societies are male-dominated, and some are female-dominated.  Some societies like to eat pigs, others don't.  Some societies worship one god, while others worship another.  Tolerance is the ability to realize that all societies, regardless of their core beliefs, have the right to exist unmolested, provided they recognize the right of all other societies to exist, as well.  I can no more force someone to be blue-eyed, left-handed and red-headed,any more than someone can force me to get a suntan.  Tolerance is realizing that diverse organisms have an equal right to exist.

Where the United States when horribly wrong was that it allowed the Federal government to take control over the States.  The original concept was that the States would be allowed to have whatever societies they each desired, and would only hand over certain common functions to the central government.  By losing sight of the founding concept, the world has had to endure a nation hell-bent on tellig the rest of the world how it must live, while at the same time screaming words like "diversity" and "tolerance" in the world's face.

I am all for gay marriage.  The right of individuals to seek happiness in whatever manner they choose is their right.  But tolerance states that these people must accept that some communities find this abhorrent, and the gay couples are free to find places that are more accepting.  The government is wrong on two counts 1) it offered a package of special benefits to heterosexual couples who are married, and 2) it forced the entire nation to accept gay marriage, thus violating the concepts of tolerance and diversity.  Had individual communities allowed gay marriage, the rest of the country would likely have changed organically over time, as diverse groups grew more tolerant.

So now the US finds itself being torn apart, because one set of beliefs was in power for a while, and forced its agenda on the rest of the country.  Naturally, the rest of the country reacted by swinging hard to the other extreme and will likely force its values on the first group.  Since the US no longer allows the States to freely chose their own course, there is no alternative.  Once the People demanded sweeping control over all the States and individual communities, they set themselves up to alternately force and be forced, especially since there are only two parties, and so only two likely outcomes.

The lack of tolerance and diversity in the US has finally come to a boil, and one which now the entire world must tolerate, since the US has a habit of forcing itself militarily upon those with diverse points of view.

The fact is, Mister and Miss Millennial/Snowflake/SWJ/numbnut, your lack of thought and study have brought the US to this point.  I don't blame you entirely, my generation and those before me are just as guilty.  However, you must now realize the result of your error, just as the rest of us did.  In a world where people come in all sizes and widths, one size does not fit all.  That is, in fact, the meaning of diversity.  Your job is to tolerate it as much as you can, and change wherever possible.

I highly recommend that you look into the Freeper Project.  Gather all your Millennial/Snowflake/SJW/numbnut buddies together and move to...oh, I don't know, Oregon maybe.  Take over the State and make it into your anti-diverse, anti-tolerant paradise.  Allow other groups to do the same in other States.  Start electing Presidents who respect the right of States to do whatever they want within the borders of the State.  Then work to dismantle the entire Federal infrastructure and return to the Founding ideals.  Start practicing real tolerance and allow real diversity, and stop whining and trying to force everyone else to adopt your goals and agenda.

The beauty of it is that, even if you were successful in crating your paradise, it wouldn't be long before you were all arguing amongst each other over who is more diverse and tolerant.

The fact of the matter is, human only like to live one way - leave me the hell alone and I'll do the same for you.

Sincerely,
People Of Intelligence

PS: I bet it never occurred to you that when you fight for RIGHTS, you are discriminating against us LEFTIES.  We hereby demand to be included and that you fight for Human Lefts, too.

The Grand Cock Fight

It seems that the majority of people hollering about diversity have no idea what it is.  The concept of open borders and racial quotas and stuffing as many different kinds of people in a room as allowed by fire code is NOT diversity.  If you are someone who believes it is, then hang on, you are about to get an education.

Diversity means a variety, a range, a set of different things.  Mom's vegetable medley is not diversity, the ingredients are diverse.  Once they are mixed into a lump, they are not longer diverse, but part of a new whole.  Diversity is not forcing all different kinds of people to live together and like each other.  That is social engineering.

Not that we know what diversity is NOT, let's look at what it really is, and see why all this whining and chest-beating over "diversity" is completely wrong.

If I try to force you to live with 20 people from other cultures, I am not practicing diversity.  I am trying to create a homogeneity from diverse subjects.  When people talk about forcing one group to accept another, they are actually being the complete opposite of diverse.

Diversity is when you allow people to live apart in their own cultures and with their own kind.  When you support and encourage people to be different, you are being diverse.  Real diversity is enjoying and relishing the differences.

Synthesis is when you pour a variety of things or people into a confined space and make them adopts each other's characteristics, so that a new whole emerges that is not equal to the sum of the parts.

Forcing Germans to accept Muslim neighbors is not diversity.  Diversity is leaving the Germans and the Muslims alone and allowing them to have their own separate identities and cultures.  A German no more wants to have the local mosque hollering at all hours of the day, mutilate their children's genitals and eliminate dogs, any more than a Muslim wants to wear liederhosen, eat pork sausage and do the chicken dance.  These are incompatible cultures, and the truly diverse person recognizes and celebrates the incompatibilities.

The whole idea that we all have to live together and get along is ludicrous.  Why?  What point does it serve?  If I don't like pork sausages, I move somewhere that doesn't have them, or I shut up and let the local folks enjoy their dinners.  You do not move into someone else's culture and immediately force them to accommodate your tastes.

This wrong-headed "diversity" movement is creating more problems than it could ever solve.  When cultures are left alone and folks can live however they want in their lands, everyone is happy and leaves everyone else alone.

When incompatible cultures are forced together and the local culture is told at the point of a gun that it must accommodate the invading culture, no matter how distasteful, then one is creating a recipe for war.  Anyone who reads history knows that.

However, diversity is not what the elites want.  They don't care whether Germans and Muslims can live in harmony and peace.  That's not what they want.  They want chaos, terror and hate, because there's profit in it.

In the world, there are three basic types of people: natives who are a product of a culture, tourists who want to sample foreign culture, and travelers who immerse themselves in foreign culture.  What all three have in common is that they perceive "My" culture and "Their" culture, and at the end of the day they can go "Home" to a culture that is distinctly their own.

THAT is diversity.

The thing that is called "diversity" by certain groups today denies on basic principle that is the basis of peace and harmony: Home.  It denies me the right to go someplace where I can be with people like me   It is denial of a fundamental right of human beings to call one group "us" and another group "them."

The ultimate goal of the "diversity" nuts is to create a synthesis of all peoples and cultures, so there is no longer an "us" and "them."  We all look, act, eat, worship, talk, and live the same, so no one is "above" or "below" another.  Little do they know that this is an unachievable goal.

I have lived in many places and with many cultures.  The one thing I have found everywhere is that everyone needs someone to shit on.  It is a fact of human nature and it ain't gonna change any time soon.  Every single person on Earth defines themselves as being better than this one, but worse than that one.

Even if the entire world looked alike and had all the same things, people would find something that separated them from someone else.  I don't care how idealistic or hopeful you are, it will not change the human condition.

In Indonesia, where everyone has brown skin, dark eyes and black hair, they define each other on character traits of groups, on clothing styles, on architecture, on location, on food.  To an observer, you would think everyone would be happy because they all look alike and live on islands, but that is definitely not the case.  There is no homogeneity here, no matter how similar folks may seem to a third party.

There is no way in hell the "diversity" movement, as it is currently defined, will ever succeed.  There are only three possible outcomes: the outsider assimilates, the host culture is assimilated, or a synthetic new culture is created.  In none of these cases can diversity be said to have succeeded.

New York City is a perfect example of "diversity."  Neighborhoods, even only a couple of blocks square, take on the culture of the people who live there.  There's a Greek area, an Italian area, a Russian area, and a Jewish area.  Within those areas, there are native restaurants and shops, the native language is spoken, and gangs form as a kind of native law enforcement.  This is the result of "diversity."  None of them get along, and peace is only maintained by each group respecting the territory of the others, and having their own respected in return.

"Diversity" is a fantasy.  It's a Utopian pipe-dream of everyone living together, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  And it has one defining feature: it fails every time it is tried.  It is not how people are wired.  We are cheetahs whose spots are set and will never change.  The spots will never become stripes, no matter how much it is decreed from on high.

It is clear, at least to me, that there is a group of elites who find it suitable to thrust all these cultures into one arena.  Like oil and water, they will never mix, and ultimately the cultures will clash violently until the proverbial last man stands.

Perhaps that's the goal: get us all to eradicate each other so that the elites are the last remaining culture, and they win by default while having "clean" hands.

It's like a grand cock fight.  The two bantams battle to the death, while the spectators bet on which will win.  Ultimately, the cocks lose and the spectators win, no matter how you slice it.

I prefer real diversity.

Damn The Tolerance, Full Speed Ahead!

"Bello, bello!  Come on now, be honest! Which one of you wouldn't rather listen to his hairdresser than Hercules? Or Horatius, or Orpheus... people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble!" - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Amadeus (1984)

Diversity.
Tolerance.

Big, lofty words with lots of bombast and hyperbole behind them.

Yes, we should all learn to tolerate diversity and love our neighbor.  The last person who proposed this was nailed to a tree.

I know what you're thinking, "Oh lord, he's not going to attack tolerance and diversity is he?"

Yes, he is.

I'll tell you why.  Behind all the high-falutin' puffery is an evil and seditious push to conform.  You cannot say certain things.  You cannot think certain things.  You must behave in certain ways.  Now, just where exactly is the tolerance and diversity in that?  Where I come from, we call this sort of thing "herding sheep."

You see, tolerating diversity means that people are allowed to have their own cultures, opinions and prejudices.  It does not mean that you have to sacrifice your own to avoid - wait for it - offending someone.  I don't try to offend, but if you are, that is your problem, not mine.  Sorry to pop that bubble for you.

Let me tell you about diversity.  I have lived in five countries and traveled to over 50.  I have encountered all sorts of people with all sorts of habits, belief and idiosyncrasies.  When someone offers me boiled dog or roasted beetles because it is one of their favorite foods, I don't shriek and call PETA or Leo di Caprio.  I settle down to a big steaming bowl of it and enjoy with the rest of the folks.  That's how it supposed to work.  Now if the dog happens to be my pet, well then I think I have the right to complain.

The thing that all these do-goodie jerks have forgotten is that the rest of the world is not like them.  Their idea of tolerance and diversity is to ensure that they are never inconvenienced or offended, not to truly celebrate the incredible color wheel of humanity.

When Westerners come to Indonesia, their first impression is frequently that this is a homogeneous land of five-foot-tall brown folks with black hair and black eyes.  It takes quite a while to learn the 300+ different cultures and how to tell who is who.  In the process, one also learns that each group has affinities with certain other groups, while being ambivalent or hostile to others.

It was the same when I lived in Germany, Ireland and Spain.  It is the same at home.  We all have certain folks we like, some we could care less about, and a few that we despise.  It's called life, and I resent when someone tries to lecture me on being "diverse" and "tolerant."  I have come by my prejudices honestly, by experiencing folks.

I have always taken people at face value.  I don't really care about general physical or philosophical characteristics.  If someone lets me vent, I return the favor.  Over time, I have noticed that I find particular groups of people are very often obnoxious, offensive or plain obstinate.  As a rule, I avoid all people of those particular groups.  Am I prejudiced?  Yes.  When the vast majority of people I have met from certain groups are jerks, I avoid all of them unless someone proves to be worth my time.

I won't voluntarily go near places where these people hang out, eat their cuisine, nor waste my time trying to tolerate their diversity.  If every time I slam my head against the wall it hurts, then I think it is safe to assume that every other time will have the same result.  Sure, padded walls may have a different result, but I'm not going to look for one to test it.

Though I won't tell which cultures I am prejudiced against, I will say that anyone who comes to me lecturing about tolerance and diversity goes on my list of persona non grata.  They are more often than not the most undiverse and intolerant people I have met.

Conformity to someone else's idea of tolerance and diversity is neither tolerant nor diverse.  It is forcing the world to behave in a way that makes these people feel comfortable, so they never have to face the unpleasant fact that there are unpleasant people.

It doesn't matter how tolerant and diverse you are, Asian drivers still suck, Indians still smell like curry, Chinese are still crafty, Germans still have no sense of humor, and Texans are still full of themselves.  These are facts of life.  Tolerate the diversity or shove off.

One thing about humans will never change: as much as we tolerate our fellow human beings, we also want to spend time around people who look, smell, eat, and think like us.  This is not a sign of intolerance, it is a natural desire to recharge our cultural batteries.  I love to argue with people, but occasionally I enjoy having someone agree with me.  I love Indonesian food, but occasionally I want a Frito pie and a box of Oreos.  I tolerate the city, but every chance I get I go to the mountains and isolation.

In other words, Germany is for Germans.  Korea is for Koreans.  Senegal is for Senegalese.  Everyone gets their personal space to be around folks they know and understand, because we all find it refreshing and less stressful.  All the whining in the world won't change who we are.

If you truly want to be tolerant and diverse, then allow everyone to hold their prejudices, revel in their imperfections and celebrate the incredible spectrum that is humanity.

But occasionally allow me to take refuge in a group of my choosing.

=====================================
As if reading my mind, one of our long-term correspondents, Ms L.K., sent the following just before post time.  I have not had a chance to verify it, but the sentiment is well noted.

What is meant by the modern term referred to as 'POLITICAL CORRECTNESS'..  Although I consider myself fluent in English, that term was not in my vocabulary. Someone found this definition in 4 telegrams at the Truman Library and Museum in Independence Missouri. The following are copies of four telegrams between President Harry Truman and Gen Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the WWII Surrender Agreement in September 1945..  The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received at the end of the war - not a word has been added or deleted!

 (1) Tokyo,Japan
0800-September 1,1945
 To: President Harry S Truman







From: General D A MacArthur
     Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

 (2) Washington, D C
1300-September 1, 1945
 To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
     Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!
 
(3) Tokyo, Japan
1630-September 1, 1945
 To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
     Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?
 
(4) Washington, D C
2120-September 1, 1945
 To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
     Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

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.

Diverse Just Like Me

You know what I can't stand?  People who run around wailing and gnashing their teeth about 'tolerance' and 'diversity'.  For one thing, they have no clue what they are talking about, and for another, they just irritate me.
These knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal fools who flog people with their tolerant and divere propaganda should crack a dictionary every now and then, because when I look up those words, I don't see goose-stepping followers anywhere in the definition.  You see, diversity means you tolerate my differing opinion, and if you don't like it, then there's plenty of other square meters in the world to go stand in.

Don't get me wrong.  The goose-stepping conservatives are just as bad.  If they had their way, the whole world would look like pablum, and I can't tolerate that either.


You see
Here's the deal - if I happen to not like green people with zits, then that's my opinion.  You are welcome to try to convince me otherwise, if I want to listen, but the world is made up of millions of opinions and this is mine.  In the name of diversity, you have to accept that I have an opinion that is different from yours.  You also have to accept that I am right and you are wrong.

Diversity does not mean I have to accept the laundry list of idiotic jerks someone holds out as being today's list of acceptable different people.  How in the hell can someone call it diversity if there is a list of things that are and are not acceptable?  That, in point of fact, is the antithesis of diversity.  Frankly, I have spent half a century developing my prejudices and I like them. 

If I see someone dressed like a gang-banger on a dark street in LA, I'm not going to try to hold hands with him and sing Kumbaya.  I assume, due to my prejudices, that he is trouble and I will take the appropriate counter-action.

If drama queens make me crazy and I dont' want to be in the same room with one because I will throttle him after about 2 1/2 seconds, then in the interest of diversity, you must tolerate my wish.

That's the whole thing about all this 'political correctness', 'diversity' and 'tolerance' crap - it is the exact opposite of what they are supposedly preaching.  Here's what I've found:

Those who hide behind "political correctness' are often blithering idiots whose arguments are so indefensible that they must force the rest of the world to accept their non-sense at the point of a gun.  They can't argue their case, so they force you to swallow the rubbish whole.

Those who hide behind 'diversity' are usually such offensive nutballs that they must force the rest of us to hang around them in the name of being diverse because they can't get friends any other way.

As for 'tolerance', well those are just those mental ants with the giant sound systems in their cars who drive around at 3am with the volume at ear-bleed levels because their manhood is so shriveled and decayed.

If anyone really believed any of this crap, they wouldn't need little terms and thought-police to make us all conform to their idea of diversity.

Here's an idea: why don't all the people of like mind hang out together and leave the rest of us the hell alone?  Go play with your unborn gay baby whales, while I eat my bar-b-qued seal pups.  If you're into obese nudity while flogging yourself with endangered California rock eels, then please go right ahead...just close the door so I don't have to see it from my window at dinner time.

And really, that's what all this silliness comes down to.  Some slimeball wants to parade his perversions in the public sphere and he wants you not only to have to accept it, but to be forced to watch it.  A handful of freaks have hijacked the public discourse and have implanted trigger words like 'tolerance' and 'diversity' so they can force all of us to accept that they are moral degenerates.  If has nothing to do with dogs and cats living together.

I'm hereby starting my own social movement.  It's called eschewal.  From now on, anyone who says I need to be diverse and tolerant will be shunned and avoided.  I can no longer tolerate those who can't tolerate me.  Think how much happier the world will be with eschewal.  Little green people with zits can hang out with people who like to squeeze zits, and none of them will be forced to hang out with Clearasil sniffers.

I am all for discussion in the public sphere, but don't parade your perversions and peccadilloes in front of me and expect me to put up with it.  As part of the deal, I will respect your private space to be just as weird and flaky as you want to be.  If you try to force me to accept or watch your strangeness, I will eschew you.  Fair enough?

I am one of the most diverse and tolerant people you'd ever want to meet, but if you force me to believe the way you do, you will quickly find the limits of my tolerance.  The real meaning of diversity is that we are all different, and the real meaning of tolerance is vive la difference!

In parts of India, 5- and 6-year-old girls are pushed into prostitution and at 12 or 13, are given away as second and third wives.  The alternative is mass starvation in the streets.  Stick that in your diversity and tolerate it.  Until you can figure out a way to solve something like that, which is a centuries-old lifestyle, then I don't want to hear a single word about putting up with your desire to tie your nipple rings to your nostrils.  I just don't have the patience to listen to that crap.