Melting Pot Or Melting Down?

A new law taking effect in Belgium in October, and later in Flanders, highlights one of the fundamental problems with the concept of cultural melting pots and integration.  The fact of the matter is that most people want to be around others like themselves.  It is a primary instinct of the human condition and no amount of force will make oil and water bind to each other.

The law bans Kosher and Halal animal slaughter, which involves slitting the throats and bleeding out the animals.  The Belgium and Flanders laws require that the animals be electrocuted before killing, in a manner considered more humane.  This, however, violates the strict food codes of Judaism and Islam.

Throughout history, when two opposing philosophical systems (religions) come into direct contact, conflict always follows.  Primarily Catholic/Christian Europe has profound conflicts with both Judaism and Islam, regardless of how much happy talk one slathers over the situation.  The contact point between the two philosophies ultimately boils over into pogroms, with the indigenous group usually winning.  It is a fact that can not be erased by wishful thinking.  History is clear on the subject.

When it comes to examples of cultural blending, many commentators point to the US as an example of the "melting pot".  This ignores one of the most poorly hidden secrets of America, though.  As waves of immigrants came to North America, they settled into ghettos, towns and even entire regions of cultural identity.  In Texas alone, there are German (Groene, New Braunsfelds), Czech (Moulton, Moravia, Praha), Spanish (San Antonio, Laredo, El Paso), Scotch-Irish (New Dublin, Shannon), British (New London, Derry) areas that can be clearly defined by culture, architecture, and even climate (just like home).

Around the country, there are the Pennsylvania Dutch, the Irish cops of Boston and New York, the Welsh miners in West Virginia and Montana, the Minnesota and Dakota Swedes, the Louisiana Cajuns, and so on.  People tend to congregate in groups and in regions where they feel most comfortable, and where the ethnic, cultural and physical environment match their fundamental values.

There is a basic and profound reason why Chinatowns spring up, Jewish ghettos exist, New York City Burroughs were delineated, and so forth.  There is a gut-level reason why even those groups that successfully integrate with existing cultures tend to congregate around ethnic restaurants, bars, places of worship, and community centers.

Even in my hometown of Houston, a thoroughly modern American city, there are entire sections of town with signs in Vietnamese and Mandarin.  There are entire neighborhoods where nearly every house has a mezuzah nailed to the doorpost.

Historically, all efforts to force people to integrate will fail, and often violently.  Only when clear lines of demarcation are mutually established does peace and harmony reign once again.  Whether the forced integration is an invasion, or the result of political policy, eventually the two opposing groups will repel each other with a force commensurate with the amount of force pushing them together.

Prejudice, bias and racism are at the core of the human condition.  Over time, groups organically integrate out of necessity or relaxing standards.  This can be clearly seen in the US, where immigrants ultimately show their willingness to pitch in and build a better community.  The Irish invasion of the late 1800s brought strife and violence with it.  Over time, the Irish became accepted and integral parts of the community and now St. Patrick's Day is one of the most celebrated holidays in the country.

There are many voices who promote racial, ethnic and religious integration, and preach loudly of the ideal humanity living in well-mixed bliss.  This is a lofty goal and no one can deny making it a reality is a long-term target for the human race.  To be sure, modern cities are "melting pots" where ethnic, racial and philosophical groups slowly blend over time through intermarriage and cultural blending.  It is a slow and tedious process, and any attempt to force it is met with equal and opposite force, frequently breaking out in bloody conflict.

The Belgian and Flemmish laws, along with others that will likely follow, represent the bow shock of backlash.  Conflicitng religious, philosophical and ethnic needs between the predominantly Catholic/Christian Europe and the Islamic invasion over the past few years will inevitably lead to conflict.  The needs and sensibilities of the two groups are fundamentally at odds.  The resistance to Halal slaughter techniques must overflow into the long-established Kosher industry, since the two are basically the same thing. 

Though Jews have been established for centuries in Europe, the revulsion against Halal slaughter must perforce include Kosher, as these types of backlash inevitably try to return to a perceived starting or neutral position and the integration process resets.

Society after society, culture after culture, from Sumeria to the present day have seen this type of rejection.  When integration is gradual, cultures blend and create new ones.  When integration is overwhelming and rapid, the invading culture makes too many sudden demands, and the extant culture slams the door.

In my own experience, I emigrated to a country (Indonesia) that was wildly different from my own.  I was careful not to inject my sensibilities onto my adopted home.  Rather, I learned the lingua franca, as well as parts of three other dialects.  I observed and adopted cultural mores and habits.  One thing you will almost never heard from my lips is, "The way we do it back home..."  I am not home and I didn't come here as an invader.  I cam to learn.

For those reasons, I have been accepted into the extant culture, despite the fact that I look nothing like the inhabitants.  I am pale, with red hair and blue eyes, and stand head and shoulders above most of the locals.  I couldn't blend in if I tried.  But, I speak the language and even in my house we speak English, Indonesian and Javanese.  I am the only white person in my neighborhood.  I eat the food, observe the manners and rituals, and even sing the national anthem on demand.  I am accepted and people are not threatened or intimidated by me.  It took years of hard work to achieve.

Already, voices are howling in protest at the new laws in Belgium and Flanders.  They want everyone to make immediate concessions to an invading culture that refuses to integrate.  This is a recipe for disaster, and no amount of political correctness will ameliorate the situation.  The backlash is spilling over into a cultural reset that will include other groups that have long been established.  It is no different from the suspicion and distrust that followed German and Japanese Americans during World War 2.

Though great progress has been made, especially in the US, over the past 50 years towards racial, ethnic and philosophical harmony among disparate groups, there is still an innate reset trigger in each of us that is activated when we feel our sensibilities are offended.  Humans can no more change it than cats can stop hunting mice.  It is an integral part of our species.  We can chose to defuse it, but it is a slow and difficult process to submerge our instincts.

If our social and political leaders would stop forcing mass displacements of people for ideological purposes, the world would be a much quieter and harmonious place, where folks could chose the culture and environment in which they prefer to live.

Humanity always makes the biggest messes when it attempts to subvert Nature.

The Vertical Hold

"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me Man, did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?"
- Adam to God in Milton's Paradise Lost

"There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery."
- The Creature in Shelley's Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science 

Throughout history, Mankind has struggled with both his own creation, and the wisdom of his creations.  Literature is replete with the lamentations of humans cursing the Creator for forcing us into a miserable reality, while at the same time cursing what we create in the rush to improve our lot.

It seems that our anger towards the Creator has cut us off from vertical progression and trapped us in a materialistic world of horizontal sliding.  In this Age of Unenlightenment, we plunge into the quest for knowledge in our collective effort to surpass our own creation, and in so doing, we inevitably manufacture unspeakable horrors that repulse our deepest spirits.

We now, as a species, stand on the precipice of creating something that will exceed our perceived limitations.  I say perceived because the ancient aesthetes told us we could transcend (vertical) and showed us many ways.  Instead, we have chosen the materialist path (horizontal), whereby we create creatures that take the journey for us, so that we can live vicariously.

We continually amaze ourselves with our cleverness and ingenuity, only to be repulsed and horrified by the same when we perceive what we have done.  One wonders if God himself felt like Victor Frankenstein, for we certainly emulate his Creature.  One wonders if humanity hasn't in fact gone backwards (horizontal) because in the end we cannot overcome our own Nature (vertical).

Though we have, as a species, become infinitely more clever with mechanics (horizontal), we have shown little if any progress in our collective wisdom (vertical).  If we have done anything collectively, it is to have divorced ourselves from Nature, trying to place ourselves at its pinnacle, though our entire history is nothing more than Sisyphus struggling to push the boulder to the peak of the mountain only to have it tumble down the other side.

The unknown sage tells us that insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results.  By this simple but effective definition, humanity has completely lost its marbles.

At the end of 2017, we stand on a precarious ledge.  We know full well that humanity's track record is pitiful when it comes to achieving the greater good with our cleverness.  We are embarking on a new path, whereby we are close to creating ourselves as we imagine we should be.  We have within our reach the ability to create genetic and mechanical beings that we hold to be superior by the puny measures we hold to ourselves. 

Artificial minds that are billions of times faster than our own and never forget anything stand waiting to be released on society (or have they already been?), while we dilute and destroy our own educational systems, keeping us from realizing what limits we truly have.

Think for a moment of all the labor-saving devices we have created in the past century, but are we less busy?  Think of all the communication devices we have created, but do we communicate better?  Think of all the vast networks and databases we have created, but do we teach ourselves from it?  Think of all the novelty we have created, but is it more than just shuffling some graphics and re-arranging some menus without delivering anything that is truly new?

It is long past time to stop.  We, as a species, must take a break and examine where we are and what we have done.  We must become vertical, that scale we long ago abandoned.  We will never effectively measure our success and failure without perspective, and that can only be achieved by rising above the landscape of civilization and mapping the terrain of our lives.

We have spent centuries rushing horizontally into a future that is multi-dimensional.  Time does not have a direction, so why must we constantly move through it in only one direction?

Ironically, humanity's salvation lies in the one thing we are seemingly incapable of doing - stopping.  We are addicted to change without ever allowing ourselves to fully comprehending what we are changing or why.  Like juicing fruit, we are throwing away the rinds without having extracted every drop, thus losing valuable sustenance in our haste to down the product and move on.

In the past century alone, we have added vast quantities of knowledge without adding a single quality of understanding.  We leave our machines to extract the richness of the data while we plunder the Universe for yet more data, never realizing that the Universe is contained in every single datum.  We already are what we seek, but that is the one place we have forbidden ourselves to look.

As our literature continually demonstrates, we have not answered the one question that perplexes us the most: who are we?  We curse the Creator for a story we made up about ourselves, and our creations have this dichotomy built into them, so that they too will manifest the same disdain for us.

Until we as a species can come to grips with our own Nature, we will never create anything but externalizations of our own internal chaos.  We will continue to loathe our creations, and they will continue to despise us, until we resolve the one issue at the center of our civilization - why do we exist?

That answer will never come from a machine.

The Gay Gene Conundrum

READER NOTE: Be sure to visit our newest outlet at SteemIt and the Twitter replacement at GAB as we make a stab to protect free speech and thought and stop supporting those who would squash them.

The more the Progressive agenda tries to assert itself, the more they tie themselves into logical knots.

Evolutionary theory states that Humans are the product of billions of years of natural selection. Certain genetic features and mutations became advantageous for survival of the species, and so allowed our kind to flourish and prosper.

Progressives argue that certain behavior, in this case homosexuality, are genetic and those who display these characteristics have no choice in the matter. They are born that way and no amount of environmental factors affect the expression of the behavior.

Homosexuality has no survival purpose. A sexual union of two (or more) members of the same sex cannot EVER produce offspring, nor does homosexual behavior impart any benefit to the survival of the species. In fact, just the opposite is true. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and a great many of our social and religious institutions call for shunning and/or killing homosexuals. Hardy a survival strategy, methinks.

As a social libertarian, I don't give a rat's ass what you do, as long as it doesn't take food out of my family's mouths. You are free to dress and act however you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to do the same, provided neither of us harms each other or destroy each other's property. In fact, this formula seems to me to be a reasonable strategy for survival and properity, and therefore fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.

Over the past couple of decades, the LGBTQ-XYZ "community" has insisted that their proclivities are genetic. They have no choice in the matter and it is not aberrant behavior, since they are genetically bound to follow this path.

Let us forget for a moment that they also want to argue that gender (not sex) identity and associated pronouns are choices, which I happen to agree with. You can ask to be called by any pronoun you choose, but I am not bound to make that choice, because to bind me would not be a choice on either of our parts. Argument settled.

Let's also keep in mind that SEX (male or female) is genetic, and that it is clearly indicated by the presence of an X or Y chromosome in an individual's DNA. Of this, there is no question nor argument. One can observe the fact with most high school biology lab equipment in a high-tax district.

Along comes this article today.  Note how the sub-heading introduces the logical fallacy from the very start.  Scientists claim to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation in men, but it's not genetic.  Huh?!

The whole purpose of the Human Genome Project (HGP) has been to map human DNA and, where possible, identify what traits each gene or group of genes control(s). Assuming, as evolution would have us do, that every gene in our DNA is the product of aeons of hit-or-miss development, where those with favorable traits survive and those without are removed from the gene pool, it makes exactly zero sense that a "gay gene" would exist, since it doesn't serve the purpose of procreation, nor any other valid survival trait, other than possibly the creation of a class of entertainers, although that assumes that the entertainer gene is passed on, which it cannot be with homosexual relationships.

This leaves us in a quandary. On the one hand, "science" declares that evolution is what has shaped humanity, but on the other, they are searching for a genetic trait that defies evolution. Either evolution is fatally flawed as a theory, or homosexuality IS a choice (environmental factors), or something completely different is happening. Think Intelligent Design, although that introduces a whole raft of new logical and rhetorical problems that fit some facts, but not all.

The problem with the Gay Gene Theory is that it destroys a whole lot of deeply entrenched ideologies - for better or worse. It sets up a philosophical conundrum: either there is a Gay Gene and both God and Evolutionists are wrong, undermining centuries if not millennia of human development, or there is no Gay Gene and those who embrace the No-Choice doctrine are completely bereft of social cache, undermining a popular social ideology.

The problem with allowing ideology to influence Science is that everyone loses in the end. The Big Bang Theory was developed to conform "science" with the religious dogma of "creatio ex nihilo." Because of the severe damage implied by falsifying the Big Bang, "scientists" are forced to deny and/or ignore all the copious discoveries that undermine the Big Bang Theory, which is NOT Science. If the Universe is infinite and stable, then there is no apparent moment of Creation, and both religious and scientific dogma are destroyed. Thus, self-evident facts must be denied to maintain the status quo, or a whole lot of work must be swept into the dust bin of history.

You can claim we live in a holographic Universe and build elaborate arguments to prove it, but standing in front of an on-coming train will quickly prove you wrong with catastrophic results.

Progressivism, which informs the dominant Western culture at this time, states that behavior such as homosexuality is a genetic imperative and that we must all accept it because these folks have no choice in the matter. However, to do so undermines the dominant scientific theory of human origins, which the Progressives also espouse as a means to dispense with religious prohibitions, even though evolution was formulated to conform science and religion.

One major problem is that evolution was also developed in order to give God a "scientific" method of creating humans without an obvious miracle being performed (though there are plenty inherent in the argument).

We are, in fact, at a significant philosophical cross-roads. There is a major clash forming between ideologies and real Science (observation and testing of facts). The dominant "scientific" theories are increasingly being exposed as based entirely on socio-political agendas and/or religious dogmas that must ignore inconvenient facts in order to survive. No matter which way we, as a civilization, turn on these arguments, it will destroy precious, long-held dogmas - perhaps all of them - in one fell swoop.

The only way out of this conundrum is to take a cold, hard look at our assumptions and observations. If our assumptions do not fit the facts, they must be deleted, no matter how painful that may be. Entire weltanschauungs are at risk. In fact, all of the extant worldviews may ultimately be destroyed in favor of something new. No matter how you slice it, the clash is coming. It cannot be avoided.

Contemporary "science" is founded on religious dogma, yet it denies this fact. Marxist/Progressivist dogma stands in stark contrast to "science" and religion. Real Science stands in opposition to all of it. There is no possible way to rectify this situation without destroying some basic assumptions within our society.

Every effort to patch up existing scientific and religious dogmas to fit the prevailing political sentiment simply kicks the can down the road so we don't have to be the "bad guys" that brought the whole system of assumptions crashing down.

We can dearly wish for something to be true because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but it does not and will never make it true. It simply places us in the position of denying reality until reality bites us in the butt.

If history is a guide, this corrective process will take a century or more to sort out, but it must and will be sorted out. The fact remains that we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Toxic Authority And GlobalRev

If up to now, you have been unable to see social engineering in practice, then I invite you to read one of the most disgusting and gut-wrenching trends currently sweeping higher-indoctrination (universities).

Duke University offers safe space for "men" to contemplate their "toxic" masculinity
Google search results

This disgusting piece of slime-sucking social engineering wants to convince men that they are evil simply for existing and that being needy, emotional basket-cases is what the world truly demands from the male of the species.

Heave.  Barf.  Puke.

This rubbish is the culmination of the destruction of the family, cultural degeneration of fathers and the rising dominance of the true toxin: militant feminism.  All of the examples of "toxic" masculinity given in the many articles on this trend (Orlando massacre, Schwarzenegger, etc.) are actually examples of toxic ideology and have nothing to do with gender.  It's like using Lizzie Borden as an example of Toxic Femininity.

Society has, for centuries, had its own controls over excessive male puffing.  There are dozens of examples in culture of primping, preening males being brought down by their own egos and self-aggrandizement, and the process works for any gender by focusing on the personality disorder, not the "toxicity" of one's gender.

Imagine the poor men who buy into this rubbish.  They can never get better.  They will always be men.  And now they will have a life-time burden of hating themselves because a tiny segment of society wants to emasculate men in order to rid itself of competition.

There is nothing wrong with masculinity.  Women are attracted to strong, self-confident and thoughtful men.  It is a natural, genetic function based on hormones which trigger electro-chemical responses overlaid with socio-cultural mores.  It has worked for at least the duration of civilization's 12,000-year history.

What is being called "toxic" masculinity is actually a result of Western culture's decline, with its lack of of self-discipline, anti-intellectualism and a desire to conquer Nature, and is not limited to males, as Hillary Clinton and her ilk clearly demonstrate.  Society's obsession with all things physical at the expense of the intellectual and spiritual has set it on a course of self-destruction that is showing up in concepts such as "toxic masculinity."  This concept belies a deep-seated self-hatred on the part of the culture, which has completely lost its natural moral compass.

There is nothing wrong with masculinity, just as there is nothing wrong with femininity.  Both are, much to the chagrin of political correctness police, completely natural functions based on eons of genetic and social development.  Western culture, primarily through the influence of the Roman Church, has decided that Nature is inherently evil and must be subjugated to human will.  It is a logical, though perverse conclusion of the concept that Creation is corrupt and incomplete, and must be perfected.

This strange dichotomy between profession of a perfect god and the imperfection of his creation has, over centuries of development, led to the idea that Mankind is not beautiful in and of itself, but rather must be polished through the use of engineering, whether social or technological.

This deep-seated concept has been further perverted by small groups with opaque motives into the idea that somehow the feminine is perfect, while the masculine must be subverted and destroyed.  Thsi is akin to yin telling yang it is no longer needed, though the balance of the Universe depends on the juxtaposition of both.

All of this is nothing less than an alchemical working.  The ancient idea that Mankind "fell" from a state of perfection (the androgyn) to one of imperfection (the genders), and must now be "elevated" once again to its original state, has permeated and informed Western philosophy for a very long time.  Thus, the obsessive push to create technology that dominates Nature and the on-going social engineering to destroy gender identity and recreate the androgyn.

Contrast this to the Buddhist philosophy that all humans are unfinished gods that must, through introspection and good works, perfect ourselves into the deities that we truly are.  In the persons of Siddhartha and Guanyin, both genders are shown to be perfectible in themselves as expressions of Nature's duality.

West: god is a third person who created flawed Nature and is deeply disappointed with the outcome.
East: the individual is a work in progress whose goal is to attain the status of god.

This underlying assumption of flaw has led to ages of cultural finger-pointing trying to blame one part or another of ourselves for the original offense against a separate and distant god.

The fault does not lie with our Natures - male/female, man/woman, masculine/feminine.  The fault lies in the fundamental assumptions we have made in our philosophical outlook on the Universe, and we are paying for that fault by attacking our very Natures.  This is, in effect, an intellectual and spiritual cancer that is eating Western civilization from the inside out.  It doesn't help matters that certain groups are using this fundamental misconception against us for achieve whatever ends they have in mind.  Why, it's almost as if this core flaw was purposefully installed to allow manipulation of society at will - a very subtle control mechanism buried deep in the structure of civilization itself.

An unarticulated, and quite possibly unknown aspect of the current GlobalRev is likely an innate "reset" button that Nature has installed in each of us.  This worldwide movement against centralized authority and mental control is likely the thing that certain groups have tried for so long to find (through genetics) and uninstall.  Perhaps that is the real goal of vaccines and GM foods - to short-circuit the "reset" button that has stymied the "authorities" for so long now.  Humans have a default setting that has been the bane of every attempt to subjugate Humanity.  I suspect, though, that the reset button does not exist in physical reality, and so is beyond the ability to affect its function or existence.

In the end, all of these attempts to rewire Humanity are absurd, futile and ridiculous.  The Great Reset Button is ultimately beyond the physical plane and is installed in Nature itself, which can never be subjugated, because Nature cannot be forced to destroy itself.

These silly "toxic masculinity" courses may work for a while, but in the end they are doomed to fail.  Perhaps focusing on perfecting who and what we are, rather than fighting it is the true Path to Enlightenment.  The real GlobalRev is a realization of our fundamental assumptions and a mass correction of our philosophies.

As the meme says, "Question Everything," but most especially question authority of every kind.

Tricks Of Light And Shadow

You've probably received an email at some time in your life showing a guy doing chalk drawings on the street that, from a certain perspective, look amazingly 3D.  His name is Kurt Wenner and he is currently exhibiting several of his works, along with some Indonesian artists, here at the Ciputra Artpreneur Center.

Preserved on canvas, these pieces lie flat on the floor or form a 90-degree angle with the wall.  When viewed through a wide-angle lens, ghostly three-dimensional images pop out of the canvas, appearing to rise out of the background or apear in front of it.  It's really quite amazing and something photos just don't quite capture.  Makes you wonder how Kurt views the world.

What the art works highlight is the weird world of perception.  How we view the world and what reality is comes down to a matter of perspective.

In the midst of all the excitement, an email pops in from my Canadian bud and long-time ex-pat.  It contained a quote that he found "out there":

“Given the fact that it has been proven that our moon is a very suspiciously perfectly placed artificial satellite that is composed of non-naturally occurring material without which we could not have life on this planet combined with the fact that our Earth is very suspiciously the only place within our solar system and very likely our galaxy that can support life there is absolutely no question in my mind that, at the very least, the entire surface of our planet and all of its life forms are in fact nothing more than elements of a very large and complex software system that is being used to run what I am completely convinced are military experiments by some non-humanoid entity.”

I shot back:

"This is just a take on the ancient concept that we create the Universe through our collective consciousness.  The Hindus and Buddhists place this idea at the center of their beliefs.  The idea of a holographic reality or software simulation is just modern terminology wrapping the same concepts."

Seems this week's theme is 'perception', since everywhere I turn there are hints about reality not being all that real and our minds creating Creation.  It's strange how Life keeps throwing theme weeks at us.  It's like Bogart week on the Million Dollar Movie or something.  Just more proof that we create our reality, or it's created for us on a regular basis.

Related to that, do people really have premonitions, or does the intensity with which they think something create the situation?  My father used to think of people he hadn't talked to in years and out of the blue they would call or contact him within 24 hours.  This was before the internet and you could track most people down fairly easy.  But you have to ask, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

As Wenner's work shows, perception is all a matter of perspective.  One step in any direction and the world we see changes quite radically.  For those who see beyond the 'trick' of light and shadow, the paintings represent a profound look at reality.  Suppose we all exist on a canvas that appears three-dimensional and solid, until you shift to the side just a bit.

Perhaps if we all mentally stepped to the side and looked at the world from a slightly different perspective, we might see something completely unexpected and remarkable.  Of course, it begs the question what would we do if we found out the Universe was just a construct of imagination?

Happy Friday!