Hog-Tied In Texas

Is it still OK to wave a white flag to call a truce, or is that racist and chock full of privileges and stuff?

It never ceases to amaze me how much cognitive dissonance a Bumbledick can hold in xis/xer/their head without exploding.  I suspect this capacity alone necessitates the crying rooms popping up on campuses around the Western hemisphere.

Here's the deal: Texas passed a law making abortion illegal in most cases after the first month and a half of pregnancy.  I seems that a woman (no, biological males cannot get pregnant) wants to have absolute control over her body and the choice whether to have a baby.  It is not enough that she had the choice not to have sex, or whether to use birth control, or even to have a full 45 days after conception to think about it.

I know women have difficulties making decisions, but come on.  Perhaps this is why there aren't more high-powered female executives?

Anyway, a bunch of people who make a tidy living selling aborted fetuses to medical science took the matter to the US Supreme Court in hopes of stopping the law taking effect.  The Supremes took one whiff of the case and shoved it back across the table.

Well, as even the corner palm reader could have predicted, the Bumbledicks are losing their minds.  How could the government tell anyone what to do with their body?  It's unconstitutional, they screech.  It's unnamaerican, they holler.  It will deprive a bunch of cloning researchers and vaccine makers of their grant money, they opined.  It's anti-capitalist!  Oh OK, I added that one myself.

All of this righteous indignation is coming from - get this - people who have spent the past two years berating, spraying, shunning, brow beating, attacking, molesting, and just plain being nasty to a lot of folks who don't want to be forced to wear masks, get injected with toxic waste and sit alone in their caves because of a wholly manufactured medical emergency.

Now wait a minute.  You say the government has no right to reach its grubby fingers into your uterus, but by golly it has every right to tell you what to wear, and what potions and how many times to inject into your sacred temple.

Maybe I'm a dying breed, and I often feel that way, but I perceive a direct connection between these two issues, where Bumbledicks don't seem to even allow them into the same part of the shambles they pass off as brains.

Though I personally find backing off my revulsion towards infanticide in order to prevent genocide is a grotesque Solomon's Choice, it does seem there is an oppotunity for Bumbledicks to make common cause with rational people.  It's not pretty, but it's a start into more expansive dialog.

Getting government all the way off our backs would be a tremendous victory for everyone involved.

Here's my offer: I would be willing to allow women the ability to abort a pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester, provided there is ZERO government funding (your choice, your cost) and the aborted fetus is immediately and thoroughly incinerated to stop the vile, nay evil trade in body parts.  If a woman can't make her choice in180 days, then there are bigger issues than just an unwanted pregnancy.

In  exchange, Bumbledicks will immediately begin opposing mandatory tests, masks, injections, and medical procesdures of any kind.

We'll call a truce on the cornucopia of other issues until this cease fire sticks.

Despite this purely rational and equitable solution, I know what the Bumbledicks will do.  They will want revenge and will start pushing their assault on everyone else's body integrity rights even harder.  I cut them a little slack, because what's left of their minds is fogged over from vaccines and carbon dioxide poinsoning. 

But hey, it's worth a shot to save the human race.

Breeders, Bumpers And Packers

A recent article in the UK's Independent twerk...er, tweaked one of my hot buttons, and as usual, no matter what I say on this topic, someone will get their panties in a bunch.

The article concerns a new study averring that about half of all humans carry "gay" genes.  This article just irks me on a number of levels, the highest of which is the complete disconnect between what is taught as science "fact," and what these ridiculous studies (read tax money scams) are constantly telling us.

Before I get to the whole "gay" gene bit, let's just look at the assertion here.  An activity that has no reproductive benefit at all can still leave genes in the general genome for generations.

Does anyone else see the problem here?  Either Darwinism, which is shoved down our throats with all the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition dictating the Credo, is flat wrong, or the desperate attempts to make homosexuality a natural rather than behavioral phenomenon has reached new heights of hysteria.

So...which is it?  Are we products of millions of years of natural selection where our behaviors are the products of Life's Herculean struggle to survive against all odds, or not?  The conclusion of this study denies even the most basic tenets of Darwinian mythology and even makes a desperate attempt to rationalize the fact.

While the argument may satisfy the PC crowd and add to the chants of "I am normal," it is, none-the-less, a complete refutation of evolutionary thought.  Since homosexuals obviously do not reproduce, there is no way in hell that a "gay" gene would survive more than a few generations under the assertions of Holy Scripture (namely On the Origins of Species).  The foundation of Darwinian Fantasy, since the late 1800s, is that all human behavior, and indeed all surviving genomes, is to reproduce, and that all behavior is somehow tied to that one function.

This proposition brings to mind Friedrich Nietzsche's very public breakdown upon witnessing a horse being beaten.  After his very public career of spouting the glories of Darwinism and the primacy survival behavior (see Albert Camus' artistic rendering in The Stranger), he realized that the powerful emotion of compassion fit nowhere into his carefully crafted weltanschauung.  The radical disconnect between his vaunted theories and his true emotions caused his great pain and death.

So it is with this ridiculous study.  Anyone who truly espouses Darwinian evolution must read this study and have their minds explode.  There is simply no way to justify the survival of a "gay" gene within the universe of "survival of the fittest."  One or the other must go.  Preferably both.

Now, before I get lots of angry email, let me remind the gentle reader that I have spent literally my entire life in the entertainment industry, from being a clothes model at age 3, to most recently completing construction of Indonesia's first international theater at my dottering old age.  In that time, I have met and worked closely with and befriended every conceivable iteration of the sexual spectrum.  I have played gay characters on stage.  I have no qualms about hugging and kissing other men and I am very open-minded and libertarian in my views on other's pursuits of happiness.  To each hizzer own.  By the way, I just made that pronoun up (it means his or her).  Anyone in the rabid PC movement that wants to use it must pay me $1 per use.

I do, however, feel sad for the LGBT activists whose only definition of Self is who/what they choose to sleep with.  C'mon...LGBT tourism, dining, clubs, politics...do they seriously encompass their entire definition of Self based on how they use their genitalia?  If so, then it is a very sad thing and we should mourn for those whose entire lives are lost to the singular pursuit of sexual gratification.

Based on my considerable experience with people of all stripes, I conclude without reservation that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic imperative.  I don't care how passionately one argues that they were born a certain way or that they have no control over their proclivities, I say emphatically it is a choice.

Humans, in my experience, tend to sexualize things they fear or long for the most.  Those who fear pain will often seek to turn the fear into a form of pleasure.  Those who are fearful of being assertive will instead use the fear as a masochist to gain some mesure of control over it.  Those who fear women might turn it to dominance and even rape fantasies.

The entire spectrum of fetishes and fantasies, so readily on display now on the internet, show to me that people fill some void or short-coming in themselves by turning that fear or emptiness into a means of deriving pleasure.  It is a psychological defense mechanism.

For instance, a man who felt jilted by girls in his formative years might turn to schoolgirl fantasies in order to take control of his feelings of loss.  A woman who lacked a positive male presence in her formative years might take on masculine behaviors and roles in order to fill in where her life did not.

Many will argue with me, and many have, but I grew up on a farm.  I have seen every imaginable creature attempt sex with their own gender, from turtles to horses.  And frankly, dogs will hump anything they can get their paws around.  I have seen no one argue in favor of all of creation having a "gay" gene to explain this behavior.  Sex is like water, it will find the easiest path to an outlet to relieve pressure.  That humans have the capacity to overlay that impulse with fantasy, fetish and rationalization is a function of our mental processes, not of a "gay" gene.

The passing off of pseudo-science as a means to political ends is not a service to anyone.  While it may assuage some fevered liberal brows and promote the general direction of socio-political discourse, it does nothing to uncover truth and deal with prejudices.  This tendency rises to the level of absurdity when feel-good studies fundamentally contradict the Establishment Narrative.  We minions are constantly left in fits of cognitive dissonance because we are brow-beaten with contradictory messages and are forced into the position of holding opposing beliefs at the same time.

It's no wonder the incidence of mental illness are rising exponentially in the West, though the situation isn't helped by the fact that the pseudo-science of psychology has defined practically every twitch and tingle as a mental illness.

It is time to put an end to all this silliness.  First, Darwinism is wrong...just plain wrong.  Second, humans will do what they can in pursuit of happiness, and as long as each allows the other that right, everyone can be happy (or at least try).  Third, those who define themselves in the socio-political realm solely by who they sleep with are hopelessly myopic.  And fourth, humans are neither slaves to each other, nor to genetics.  No matter what our DNA hands us, we are capable of overcoming it or enhancing it freely, provided we put in the effort.  Any other point of view is a surrender to the wind.

This argument comes down to a fundamental question of weltanschauung.  We are either Aristotelian or Platonic.  Either we believe completely in materialism and that an individual is nothing more than a set of reproductive impulses, or we believe that we can and should transcend our physicality and seek higher states of being.

I, for one, will continue to hold the opinion that I am far more than a seething cauldron of electro-chemical impulses.  My sexuality is not who I am, it is one thing I do along my path to fulfillment.

Dark Pots And Black Kettles

"Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.[4] The term is used most by the United States, though the US State Department officially quit using the term in 2000.[5] However, it has been applied by other countries as well.[6]"

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."

One assumes that the US "officially" stopped using the term 'rogue state' because it was becoming a bit obvious that the definition was a bit too close to home.  One tends to look a bit silly when one is a leper condemning lepers.  The tactic works for a while: pointing the finger at others to keep folks from looking at you.  Eventually, though, the ruse wears thin and people stop looking the other way.

The definition says that a 'rogue state' is characterized by an authoritarian regime.  We not that an online dictionary defines 'authoritarian' as:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an  [uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-]  adjective1.  favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.  of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.  exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

Favoring complete obedience or subjection?  Might that include federal agents raiding marijuana vendors in states where the laws clearly state that the practice is legal?  Or how about warrantless searches, tasering citizens for looking cross-eyed at police, or indefinite detention without trial or access to legal defense?  Perhaps the idea that personal freedom is subject to law at all, rather than a gift and state of Nature?

Certainly, having TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, marshals, and any of a couple dozen other armed extralegal agencies running around subjugating the population using various means would seem to fit the definition of 'authoritarian' quite readily.

So how about sponsoring terrorism?  This is a tricky one because terrorism depends heavily on who is defining the term.  The founders of the US could easily be called terrorists by the British.  The North American native peoples might have thought of the US cavalry as terrorists.  Clearly, the Assad government considers the rebels to be terrorists, and they are openly supported by the US.  The long, sad history of CIA involvement in political coups, assassinations and other nefarious acts would qualify that agency as a terrorist group.

We can't forget the US-led blockades against multiple nations.  The denial of basic food, medicine and energy to entire nations, civilian and military alike, easily falls under the definition of 'terrorism', since the desired effect is to frighten the citizenry into predefined actions, such as overturning legitimately seated governments.  The US itself has considered blockades (British, Confederate, etc.) as acts of 'terrorism' and war against itself.  'No-fly zones' might be included here, as they deny the basic right of humans to defend themselves against attack.

It would seem that from the point of view of a great number of people, the US sponsors terrorism.

How about seeking to proliferate weapons of mass destruction?  Again, we turn to our online dictionary to check the definition of 'proliferate':

pro·lif·er·ate  [pruh-lif-uh-reyt]  verb (used without object), verb1.  to grow or produce by multiplication of parts, as in budding or cell division, or by procreation.
2.  to increase in number or spread rapidly and often excessively.

By most accounts (Nazi research aside), the US invented both the uranium and hydrogen bombs, easily the most destructive devices ever conceived by Man.  The US, as far as we know, is also the only country to have used them in warfare.  The US has designed and/or developed a great number of chemical and biological weapons, such as ricin, anthrax, LSD, and many others, and performs research, manufacturing and storage of these weapons.

As for the US Army's willingness to use them, we need look no further than the infamous smallpox blankets distributed to native Americans and the Army's refusal to provide vaccines to stop the epidemic.  While that is only the best documented event, there is substantial evidence that the US has deployed chemical and biological agents on numerous other occasions.  Among them is the use of psychotropic chemicals by the CIA when researching various forms of psychological warfare.

We also know that the US has the stated goal, if not the ability at this point, to weaponize weather, which may be considered mass destruction.  The document AF 2025 Final Report is widely available online.  There is a large body of research that points to the HAARP device and a related network of arrays across North America are used in active research, at the very least, and actual weather modification, at the most extreme.

Finally, the US and its military-industrial complex are the largest producers of military hardware on the planet.  Together, they also constitute the largest arms dealer on said planet.  The weapons manufactured and sold by this consortium include both 'smart' (highly targeted) and mass weapons.

We come now to the final part of the 'rogue state' definition: 'considered threatening to world peace'.

The US has military bases and/or personnel on active duty in at least 130 countries around the world, according to Ron Paul.  There are just over 200 recognized, sovereign states in the world.  That's about 65% of the world actively occupied by the US military.  Only Germany, as far as any credible information goes, has a reciprocal base in North America.

The US is also actively involved in nearly all of the major conflicts on Earth at this time.  Whether it is Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, or South/Central America, the US has a significant role in ongoing military situations there.

Combined, these facts would seem to strongly imply that the US is a major threat to world peace.  All euphemistic terms, obfuscations and excuses aside, the production and distribution of arms, the occupation of more than half of the world's nations, and active research into weapon technology, both smart and mass, as well as a history of willingness to use all of the above to subdue people, both foreign and domestic, defines a threat to world peace.

Regardless of whether the US has 'officially' abandoned the term 'rogue state', it did at one time actively use the term and had a significant role in defining it.  The ongoing revelations of egregious violations of individual liberties by the US against its own people, much less those of other countries, is the hallmark of despotism.  The use of multiple government agencies to subdue and forcefully rule people is the very definition of authoritarian.

History teaches us that these kinds of states end badly for all concerned.  From Rome to the Soviet Union, authoritarianism contains its own destruction by denying people their most basic desires of freedom, peace and privacy.  Eventually, whether from within, outside or a combination of the two, these types of regimes are dismantled.  It is a fact with many examples throughout world history.

In the extant case, history must serve as a cautionary tale to both the leaders and population of the US.  While these types of regimes may exist and even prosper for a time, at some point an equal and opposite force will arise.  It is one of the fundamental laws of Nature.  The historical models also tell us that the fall of these regimes is very painful for many, especially the innocent caught both by surprise and in the middle of the conflict.

It is therefore incumbent on the American people to check the unbridled expansion of the current paradigm, for it is the American people who will suffer the most should the worst-case scenario occur.  Authoritarian regimes often end with the occupation and forceful dismantling of the state's apparatus.  It is better that the American people handle this themselves, obviously, to preserve some order and ensure a way of life to their liking.

One of the hardest things to admit is that your own country is neither moral nor ethical.  We all like to think that we are a force for good in the world.  But we must look at these things objectively and examine the results obtained by those acting in our name.  It is a common fallacy to say that the ends justify the means.  Peace is not achieved through war, and order is not drawn from chaos without without an incredible amount of energy being put into the equation.

None of this is to say that the US is the only rogue state, but it is the largest and most threatening.  No political structure has ever been conceived that is so good that it must be foisted on the rest of the world by force.  One catches far more flies with honey than with salt.

The American people have many peaceful, even passive, tools at their disposal to change the direction their leaders have chosen for them.  Violence is not an answer, for it only begets more violence.  Nor is this to say that unenlightened anarchy is an answer.  It can be as simple as an overwhelming majority openly and actively refusing to participate in elections.  There can be not claim to legitimacy in a democracy if a large majority of the electorate refuse to participate on moral and ethical grounds.

Though only one example, the reader is more than able to discern a dozen other such actions that would have immediate effect on both the existence and perception of a rogue state.  The key here is that rogue states are geared to absorb and expel violence.  By approaching the problem this way is to invite certain defeat.  They are, however, incapable of understanding peaceful initiatives.  To them, all the world is a nail for which they only conceive of hammers.

Only when the people stop participating in their own subjugation will things change.