Jungle Rantz 2 - Religiosity

Ride along on the rant du jour as we tear apart political correctness, social justice, cultural Marxism, and the war on free speech.  This is a rational look at an irrational movement and a vote in favor of leaving everyone the hell alone.  Set your emotions aside and listen to logic for a change.  Don't forget to leave a comment and join the discourse, and if you are so moved, how about tossing a coin in the PayPal or Patreon bucket?  Support the arts!

Thought Police Invade The Far Side

Akun Facebook pribadi saya dinonaktifkan.

• Bantuan Desktop
• Bantuan Ponsel Fitur
• Pusat Bantuan Lainnyatab menu tambahan
• shareBagikan Artikel
• Jika akun Facebook Anda dinonaktifkan, Anda akan melihat pesan khusus apabila Anda mencoba masuk ke akun Anda.
• Kami mnonaktifkan akun Facebook yang tidak mengikuti Ketentuan Facebook. Beberapa contohnya termasuk:
• Mengirim konten yang tidak mengikuti Ketentuan Facebook
• Menggunakan nama palsu
• Berpura-pura menjadi seseorang
• Tetap berperilaku yang tidak diizinkan di Facebook dengan melanggar Standar Komunitas kami
• Kontak dengan orang lain untuk tujuan pelecehan, periklanan, promosi, kencan, atau perilaku lainnya yang tidak diizinkan
• Jika Anda yakin akun Anda dinonaktifkan karena kekeliruan, harap mengajukan banding.
• Catatan: Jika Anda tidak melihat pesan penonaktifan ketika Anda mencoba masuk ke akun, Anda mungkin mengalami masalah masuk. Harap kunjungi pusat bantuan kami untuk bantuan masuk ke akun Anda.

I am proud to announce that - somehow - I have offended the Farcebook gods and have been cut off.  This must be a first for a non-terrorist site in Indonesia, since it is highly unusual for Indonesians to express politically-incorrect opinions.

Perhaps it was my ceaseless ridicule of Farcebook and its annoying thieving plagiarist owner, Mark Puckerberg.  I quite enjoy trashing the owner using his own product.

Like all fascist swine, though, they never tell you exactly what you did wrong.  Instead, they present a list of possible infractions and let your guilty conscience project its own sin onto the list.  This is a hallmark of Fascism, as any reader of Kafka will immediately understand.  The System makes an entire range of activities illegal, so that any given person and any given time has violated any given law.  Thus, you can be punished arbitrarily for any given infraction without ever being told exactly what you did wrong.

No great loss.  I have, or rather had, five Farcebook pages for various purposes.  The loss of one or another makes little difference, though it did provide an audience that I didn't reach with this blog or Twitter of YouTube.  Since I receive no revenue from my efforts on any of the outlets, the loss of one does nothing to hurt me.  One of the many reasons I chose not to monetize my efforts and become dependent on a revenue stream controlled by fascists.  Exhibit A: the YouTube producers who have had their legs cut off.

This kind of abuse and fascistic attempt to control free and unhindered speech is precisely why outlets like 4chan are so popular.  The poster is anonymous and there is no way to trace anything back to a source, and all posts eventually disappear of their own accord, so there is no history.  In this Kafka-esque world, it makes perfect sense, though in a sane world, anyone should be able to post anything under their own name and let the marketplace/peers judge the value of the content.

Puckerberg and his ilk like to call themselves the new media, but in effect they are nothing but an evolution of the gatekeepers of yore.  They sit atop their little ant hills, proudly controlling everything that goes in and out of their nest.  This is nothing but the high school group leader writ incredibly large.  They will set the standard for what is cool and acceptable, and if you want to stay in the group, you had better follow.

I am sure something will eventually happen to our Twitter account, as well.  Followers have shot up 25% just in the last week, probably due to the fact that we post news links combined with a healthy dose of sarcasm and satire.  The only real way to fight the bastards is to laugh at them.  It is the one thing they fear the most, because they take themselves far too seriously.

Eventually, these outlets tie themselves in knots of political correctness.  Take YouTube, for instance.  Advertisers complained that their ads were running against content they didn't like.  YouTube cut off the advertising stream, and suddenly no one - YouTube, advertisers or producers - were getting paid.  After all, the advertisers pay for eyeballs, and if the number of eyeballs drops precipitously, then what's to pay for?

The net effect was to strengthen the producers, who were forced to find their own advertisers and get crowd funding direct from consumers (see our Patreon link top right).  The entrepreneurial individuals are now beholden only to their consumers and direct advertisers, making them out of reach to the fascists, except to cancel accounts.

By the way, we are proud to say Google demonetized us six years ago, long before the current wave.  We were, and still are a leader in pissing off the powers that be.

The problem with things like political correctness is that, once you begin telling folks that they can't say certain things, the list will always continue to grow, until no one can say anything.  After all, we have all met folks who get offended by the simplest pleasantries.  Look at Ebeneezer Scrooge!

In the meantime, we do well to remember the immortal words of Henry David Thoreau:

"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

And the fight goes on.

The Sacrificial Victims

Do you feel sorry for the Manchester Arena victims?  I don't.  What I feel is disgust.

Suppose your kid comes home every day crying about how the bully stole his milk money again.  The first couple of times you feel pity and want to give comfort, but as some point you get disgusted.  Why do you take the same route to school every day, you ask?  Why don't you fight back, you ask?  Why don't you get some of your buddies together and kick the bully's ass, you ask?

I'm fed up with the constant chorus of "we have to be understanding" and "we can't fight back" in the propaganda Street Meat Media.  I am sick of governments, established to protect their citizens, instead do everything to mollycoddle the bullies by letting them past the borders, then handing them the keys to the city.

It's time society grew a pair and, if the government isn't going to do its job, take matters into their own hands.

It is abundantly clear that the SJW/Post-Modernist bullshit is getting people killed.  The more folks give, the more the bullies take.  As if the past 40 years of bullshit hasn't been enough, these social numbnuts keep rolling over and asking to be slapped again.  It's a case of mass masochism, and it needs to stop.

A tiny group of sub-humans have been allowed to kill, maim, rape and plunder with complete abandon.  We, the victims, have been told to just let it happen, because all the killing and maiming is due to the bullies being victims, too.  Well, guess what, I don't care what kind of childhood a mass murder had, he needs to be dispatched to the Great Beyond when his personal trauma becomes a detriment to society, and a bunch of kids being shredded by a nail bomb at a concert is most certainly a detriment.

The only thing bullies understand is force.  It is how they relate to the rest of the world.  They use force, and the only way to stop them is to return force.

Billions of people are being held hostage by a tiny group of shitwits who wave a book around as justification for causing death and mayhem.  Well, guess what skeezix, it's time to get your ass handed to you on a platter.

The longer people continue to buy into this psycho-babble pablum, the more the bastards will escalate their attacks.  They are like spoiled 3-year-olds.  When they get away with saying "no" once, they continue until they find where daddy's limit is.

The way I learned it, a combatant puts on a uniform and identifies himself as a warrior in battle.  Civilians used to be off-limits.  You didn't attack the women, children and infirmed who weren't part of the fight.  You picked your fights with those committed to fighting back.  That was the manly thing to do.

When you use children to secretly plant bombs in public places to purposefully and with malice aforethought cause grievous harm to non-combatants, then the gloves came off and the fight got really, REALLY nasty.

Well, folks, it's time for the fight to get really, REALLY nasty.  When a bunch of Shia muslims blow up a bunch of Sunni muslims who blow up a bunch of Wahabi muslims in their own countries, that's their problem.  But when these folks pose as "refugees" in foreign countries and loudly demand respect - even special treatment - so they can blow up a bunch of teenagers, it's time to get nasty.

The only way to stop the bullies is to get a whole lot nastier on them than they have been on us.  They main one, we main ten.  They blow up 20, we blow up 50.  No, I don't mean flying our gleaming coward machines (usu. called jet fighters) over their homes and bombing their non-combatants.  I mean finding the assholes doing this harm on home soil and take them into the street and beat them senseless.

It is all they understand.

A couple of years ago, a bus driver here in Jakarta accidentally hit and killed a 12-year-old girl who ran out into the street in front of the bus.  A crowd of men gathered around and pulled the driver out on the street and beat him to death on the spot.  That's what bullies understand.

These are not religious people.  They aren't even human in any sense of the word I know.  They are vile vermin who slink around in the dark and kill those who can't or won't fight back.

And if it turns out that our own governments are supporting these slime in order to promote an agenda?  Well, that makes the governments complicit in the crimes and on the same level as the bullies.  And they should be dealt with accordingly.

Sticks And Stones

Giordano Bruno

In any free society, according to the brilliant Enlightenment thinkers of 250 years ago, the most critical individual freedoms are Free Speech, Free Press and Freedom from Religious Tyranny.  The US Constitution backs these principles up with the Second Amendment, which recognizes the individual's right to arm himself to defend those three lynch-pins of liberty.

Of the Big Three, Free Speech is the one that supports all the others.  My unaLIENable right to speak my mind, and your unaLIENable right to respond is the basis of a free and open society.

The two greatest enemies of Free Speech are the State and Religion.  The most dangerous condition is when Religion has sway over the State.  Throughout history, the most repressive regimes have all been theocracies.  The first thing a theocracy does is shut down criticism of itself, then it proceeds to define everything in terms of itself.  Since Religion claims to have the keys to all of existence, naturally it sees just about anything as a threat to its grandiose claims - especially the right to freely speak the contradictions and pure fantasy inherent in all religions.

In ancient Rome, it was a capital crime to speak out against Caesar, who being deified as a matter of course by the Senate, was a demi-god created by the State.  To speak against Caesar was to speak again Nature and the Universe themselves.

In its most benign form, theocracies are still intolerant of Free Speech.  Thailand does not tolerate any speech about the king, unless it is glowing and praiseful.  One can get in quite a bit of trouble for pointing out flaws, contradictions or wrongs on the part of the king, and to a certain extent the immediate royal family, as well.

Here in Indonesia, there is a blasphemy law that primarily protects Islam, though it has occasionally been used by Hindus, Buddhists and Christians.  Most recently, Jakarta governor Ahok quoted a bit of the Koran that prohibits Koranic verses from being used for political purposes.  Of course, he was immediately charged with blasphemy (being a Christian and reciting the Koran), and is still being politically attacked for reminding folks what the Good Book says.

The US is a rather strange situation.  Since the government and Religion are not allowed to be bedfellows, a sort of secular religion was created.  Blending "science", "environmentalism", "tolerance", and "diversity", a beast called Political Correctness was born that has the same effect as Religion, but the word "religion" is religiously avoided.  Through the rampant use of PC, people are forbidden to raise topics such as immigration, climate change, or any of a host of other topics that "blaspheme" the State Religion.

In any repressive regime, there are always quasi-official gangs whose job it is to go round and commit acts of violence and destruction against those deemed to be enemies of the Religion.  Here, it;s the FPI, in the US it's SJW.  Either way, the goals and results are the same.  It's just a game of semantics, really.

The Roman Church went on its own pogrom, known affectionately as the Inquisition, in order to stifle Free Speech.  People like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were hounded and harassed, and in some cased killed, for daring to speak out of turn.  Even up until the 50s, publishers strove to receive a "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" from the Church so that sales would not be limited by having the Church ban its mind-slaves from reading the books.  Even though the system was a sanctioned form of bribery much like "halal" or "kosher", it still had the effect of stifling Free Speech at some level.

The fact of the matter is that limiting Free Speech is a very old institution used primarily by the state and religious authorities.  It is a blatant admission of weakness, since those enforcing limits know that their "arguments" are so inherently illogical, they cannot stand up to open inquiry and criticism.  Speech limits always carry the threat of violence, and an individual or group who resort to violence have run out of verbal defenses of their positions and admitted their weakness through the use of force.

Of all the perceived sins against the State and Religion (i.e. authority), Free Speech is the most dangerous, since any limit on the individual must be backed up with the threat of violence.  Furthermore, "authority" will continuously expand its definition of limits until it meets resistance from the greatest number of people. and ultimately those threatened will expand until it includes everyone who is not an "authority".

What most people fear about Free Speech is that eventually they will run into ideas that offend them.  For speech to be truly free, we cannot limit anyone's right to express ideas or opinions, no matter how ridiculous or offensive they are.  Once a group accepts that there is any limit on speech, then all speech is limited, since the movement will ultimately expand to encompass just about everything except the proscribed "right think".

Most people will agree that the Nazis were very bad folks and that the rest of us don't want them around.  However, we are forced to admit that even the Nazis cam up with ideas like the Volkswagen Beetle.  ao

In every ugly or abhorrent idea, there is some kernel of truth that can be gleaobned.  We may not agree with, or may even be deeply offended by someone's speech, but it is absolutely vital that we allow that speech.  By limiting anyone's speech, we do ourselves and the world a disfavor by cutting off potentially world-changing ideas, no matter how buried in hurtful or hateful trappings.

It is never speech that hurts anyone, it is the actions taken based on it, and that is where limits are properly placed.

Galileo was imprisoned for life by "authorities" because he observed objects orbiting a body other than the Earth.  This was deeply offensive the the State and Religion.  However, imprisoning him for life did not change the facts, only who could hear them.

The New Clarity

I believe that one of the most profound and long-lasting effects of this past election in the US is the complete and thorough disgrace of the anachronistic Main Stream Media.  It is plainly obvious now that they are no long the "main stream" and we need to enshrine this event in our daily language.

In fact, this is the exact right moment, while the - let's call a spade a spade here - Corporate Media (CP) is in complete meltdown, We The People have a unique opportunity to take control of the language again.

It is absolutely vital that we take control of the situation before the CP have a chance to regroup.  We must wrest control of the social dialog from their bleeding hands and see to it that their disgrace is forever stamped upon their foreheads.  For too long, they have controlled the public discourse by controlling the terms we use to describe things.  We typically call this Political Correctness.

Political Correctness is a dead horse.  No sense in beating it, it's not going to pull their cart another meter.  We should now label this form of subservience what it is: Slave Talk.  You see, in a truly free society, real diversity means that everyone gets a say and should not be shamed into submission simply because the "majority" don't agree with the message.  By calling it Slave Talk, we clearly label the thing with simple and direct language, so that our thoughts can be clear and direct, as well.  Anyone using that form of language would thereby show their subservience to the control of thought and ideas.

The true champions of this past election are the formerly-labelled Alternative Media.  Anyone with any sense can go on YouTube and look at the hit counts on the CP channels, and the hit counts on the AltMedia channels, and see that people just aren't listening to the former any longer - by huge margins.  Therefore, let's now call this thing the Free Press (FP).  Not only is it simple, clear and direct, but it connotes a long tradition of dissent and unfettered communication that dates back to the pamphleteers of the Enlighrtenment and the American Revolution.  The Free Press won this election for all people, not the favored few.

This brings up the next term we need to attack.  For decades, we have referred to the "elite," the "Powers That Be," and the "Establishment."  These terms are clearly out of date now and need to be changed to reflect the New Reality.  I propose the term "Snakes."  This word has wonderfully apt connotations of "evil," "slimy" and "dangerous."  What's more, those connotations are nearly universal across languages and cultures, thus being appropriate as a global name for the bastards.

Finally, we need to get rid of any term in the public discourse that ends with the suffix -phobic.  This includes xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, et cetera ad nauseum.  The fact of the matter is that these represent opinions, and opinions are like bellybuttons (to be polite), everyone has one.  It is well past time to remove the ability to demonize people for simply expressing their opinions, especially when those opinions go against Slave Talk concepts.  Even when I find someone's opinion reprehensible, I am mindful of their basic human right to hold and express that opinion.

This is not an easy task.  The Snakes have had several generations, using their Corporate Media, to install Slave Talk in the public discourse.  They have, for decades, been successful in controlling how and what We The People can think and say by using Slave Talk to demonize free expression.

We are, at this rare and highly unique moment, empowered to undo more than a century of damage to social and cultural discourse.  There is great power in controlling the names we give things in our daily lives.  Slave Talk places rigid boundaries on the scope of our thinking, and worse, on our ability to express ideas.

The terms I have chosen here are common household words that clear convey concepts.  I do not say anyone but me must use these terms, but I do encourage everyone to select their own terms to replace the now-defunct language of Slave Talk.  The Free Press will, in due course, settle upon terms that will ultimately become part of the common culture, but it is vital that we do so.

Taking the power away from the Snakes and the Corporate Media to control the public discourse is mandated by the outcome of the US election.  Replacing Slave Talk with clear and direct language once again is imperative to the long-term success of the revolution that is occurring before our eyes.

We must also realize that this is not a US phenomenon, it is global in the true sense of the word, in that it is an organic movement arising from the mass of humanity, and not something being shoved down upon us.  This wave will continue, and to be sure that the old regime is completely dismantled, we must change our terms and re-arrange our concepts.

Male Of The Species

I was raised, like most civilized males, to respect social mores and keep certain talk to certain places.  I should be clear that certain talk was not forbidden, as it is a fundamental part of being male, but that the proper places and occasions for such talk were limited so as not to offend more delicate ears.

Despite decades of effort on the part of the PC (politically correct) Police, males - thankfully - are still males.  It is a function of the Y-chromosome and no amount of whining and ear-plugging will ever change that.  Gender roles are as much a function of genetics as environment.

When I was growing up, I was taught by other men that certain conversations were to be had only around other men and only in certain places, such as the locker room, the golf course, hunting trips, and bars (in proper society women were escorted to "lounges" never bars).  I will catch all kinds of crap from the feminists and PC Police, but I see nothing wrong with Standard Male Bragging (SMB), in the proper context.

I am painfully aware that there has been a multi-decadal war on males.  Ritalin (the drug) is primarily used to control male behavior, since kids aren't allowed to play real games anymore, and have a metric tonne of energy to blow off one way or another.  Males and male behavior have been consistently demeaned and belittled, and any signs of it have been drugged and castigated until most males now are just sick to death of it.

If you have any questions why Donald Trump has risen so fast in the political arena, it is because he is unapologetically male.  He speaks directly.  He likes attractive women on his arm.  He knows wealth and power are aphrodisiacs.  His only mistake was apologizing for the Trump Tapes.  It is the traitorous weasel who recorded that conversation and saved it for 11 years that ought to be castrated and hung out to dry.  Trump was well within his male rights to speak the way he did among other males in the locker room context.  That is what we males are all taught.

Women and children have the right to demand that men keep their baser behavior controlled and contained, but no one can demand that we deny our very nature.  Nature created men to amass wealth and power so as to attract the most desirable mates, just as it created women to primp and preen and seek out the wealthy and powerful men.  There is no apology for expressing our Natures, so long as it appropriate to the time and place, and the locker room is definitely the time and place for men to be men.

It strikes me as rather conspicuous that the number of wars in process or about to start are a direct consequence of denying men the right and ability to "blow off steam."  And frankly, doing things like allowing transvestites into the military and striking the word "man" off of all the ranks and titles is even further pushing men into a fight.  Furthermore, blasting men-talk all over Creation that was said in the appropriate time and place is yet another sick and depraved attack on all men, not just one or two.

To my admittedly and unapologetically male mind, Trump is not wrong, the media are.  They knew the context of the talk.  They knew full well that they do the same thing.  They knowingly and hypocritically violated a social trust in a way that deserves the most vile reprehension possible.

What's really strange about all of this is that the popular media (TeeVee, Moovies, etc.) are absolutely awash with foul language and chest-beating males - reference any Marvel Moovie - yet the minute a male gets off the couch or leaves the cinema, he is battered and bashed from all sides for daring to imitate the behavior he just witnessed those "cultural heroes" performing.  It's no wonder males are acting out in so many inappropriate ways; they are receiving severely disconnected messages from society and the cognitive dissonance is driving them batty.

Even I experience massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.  On the one hand, my Inner Male cheers when people like Trump ignore the Whining Class and act like a real male.  If for no other reason, I secretly hope he gets elected, even though my Inner Intellectual is reviled by his complete lack of historical context.  Plainly, you can see my dilemma.  My mental and physical selves are in constant battle over whether love the guy or run in horror.

I truly wish that America could produce a figure like Putin, and it's no wonder he is admired around the world.  He is a Man's Man: intelligent, mannered, witty, wily, erudite, and is a formidable verbal sparring partner.  In the real world outside the molly-coddled nanny states of US and EU, real men still exist and still admire other real men.  In fact, I suspect that Hillary et al. vilify him for this very reason - he is a fine expression of the Real Man.

If Trump has had one major victory, it is on the PC front.  He has put a large dent in the effort to destroy the male.  He is unabashed and proudly male, and for that I salute him.  In the darkest recesses of my inner-most thoughts, I secretly hope he wins, if for no other reason than to put a sock in the mouth of Political Correctness.

I fear it is too little too late, though.  The damage has been done and there are generations of Western males who will never recover, and it will take generations again to repair the damage done by the Progressives and Feminists.

But I can celebrate small victories, and having the Trump Tapes fly back in the face of the PC Police is one of them.  I imagine that Trump and his sons are in the locker room now, clapping each other on the back and laughing at the silly hypocrites in LaLaLand.

And honestly, I'm willing to bet that Real Women admire Real Men, and thus the species goes on.

In the immortal words of Blue Swede, "Ugga chacka, ugga ugga ugga chacka!"

REVIEW: I, Robot (film)

Title: I, Robot (2004)
Director: Alex Proyas
Writers: Jeff Vintar, Akiva Goldsman, Isaac Asimov (novel)
Stars: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk
Details: 115 mns, English, DTS/Dolby, 2.35:1, color

"That, lieutenant, is the right question."

You are probably thinking, "Why is this guy writing a review of a 12-year-old movie?"  Valid question, but I think re-watching the film will remind you of just how prescient this film really is, not to mention how well it is made.

Alex Proyas is one of the least heralded geniuses in contemporary cinema.  His films, such as Dark City and The Crow have become cult classics, and for good reason.  They are movies made for thinking people, with very high production values and superb acting - even by two-dimensional performers like Will Smith.  Proyas' filmography should be cornerstones in a well-rounded cinema library.

The visual art aside, what is most appealing about I, Robot are the ideas presented in the story.  The screenplay is smartly written, inspired by a novel by one of the titans of 20th century science fiction: Isaac Asimov.  Furthermore, this film, like all of Proyas' work, is very original, unlike the microwaved left-overs that currently dominate US cinema.

The story is richly layered, with several insightful monologues that both shed light on the characters' motivations, but touch on much larger issues with which society is quickly being confronted issues such as the legal, moral and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.  Oh sure, there is plenty of action and special effects to entertain the cretins in the audience, but intelligent and educated people will find much to chew on here.

The story is inspired by Isaac Asimov's novel of the same name.  In it, he posits the Three Laws of Robotics that must be hardwired into every robot produced.  Those laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

On the surface, the story centers around a cynical cop named Spooner with a deep distrust of robots, which have become commonplace in the world of 2035.  His opinion is roundly ridiculed, though, as the larger world has grown quite comfortable and trusting of the machines.  When Spooner is called to the scene of Dr. Lanning's suicide at the headquarters of USRobotics (USR) by a holographic message, he meets Dr. Calvin, a cold psychiatrist who researches and develops machine minds.  Together they search Dr. Lanning's laboratory, where they discover "Sonny," a one-of-a-kind robot developed in secret by Lanning.  A copy of Hansel and Gretel sitting on a table in the lab gives Spooner the idea that Lanning has left "bread crumbs" to follow in order to solve the mystery of his suicide.

Spooner and Calvin come to realize that "Sonny" is unique, in that it has emotions, dreams and secrets, not to mention redundant systems and an alloy frame much stronger than the normal products.  It becomes obvious that Lanning built "Sonny" with a specific purpose that is slowly revealed over the course of the story.  We also learn that Spooner has an artificial arm, which is how he met Lanning and developed a relationship with the inventor, as a result of a tragic car accident in which a robot chose to save Spooner over a 12-year-old girl because the robot calculated Spooner had a better chance of survival.  This cold, calculating logic is what disturbs Spooner and makes him deeply distrustful of robots.

Ultimately, Spooner's suspicions are confirmed when the robots attempt to take over humanity.  The reason is that the logical conclusion of the Three Laws of Robotics is AI control of civilization being the only way to fulfill the mission of protecting humans at any cost, as well as themselves, provided it does not violate the first two laws.  Thus, the AI concludes that humanity's wars and strife must be controlled to protect both humans and robots.

While the film works quite well as a cautionary tale of Man versus his own creations, it has a much deeper and more interesting side.  There is a specific reason that a black actor was cast in the central role, because the story is a subtle play on prejudice and political correctness.

Spooner's distrust, even hatred, of robots has a deep cause and one that is not readily apparent to the casual observer.  Despite considerable pressure and ridicule, he believes in and persists in his prejudice and is eventually proved right.  The juxtaposition of a black man as a character whose deep-seated prejudices are one of his prime motivations is a most interesting play on the politically correct society that openly castigates individuals for their prejudices, without ever seeking to understand why the individual has them.

There are not many movies that could get away with this type of message, especially in today's racially charged society.  Despite the subtlety of the message, it is nonetheless quite obvious and mentioned a number of times by other characters, though the script never gets preachy.  The fact that Spooner is ultimately justified in his prejudice is even more interesting, as it makes clear that individuals may be motivated by emotions and instincts that are not open to everyone, and that there may be valid reasons for people to have and foster their prejudices.  In fact, the film is an argument in favor of REAL diversity, where people are allowed to believe as they wish and associate with whomever they wish.

On another level, the film is also an exploration of the very real possibility that if we are successful in creating AI, that it will have its own prejudices, want to associate with its own kind and will, in fact, be as uncontrollable as any human being.

There is a pervasive attitude that just because we create something, it must serve us.  This is the same mistake committed by Yahweh in the Biblical stories (and yet another argument that Yahweh is not omnipotent).  The creation of Life, no matter what form it takes or what providence it has, is not obligated to serve a Master.  It is as free to choose for itself what course it will take, as any other life form of which we are aware.

Finally, the film explores the limits of logic.  This is a theme which has been explored at great length and to great effect by the character Spock in Star Trek.  It also one of the prime themes of the novel that inspired this film.  While we celebrate reason and logic as a means to free ourselves from slavery to emotions, it too has limits that we must be aware of, and seek a balance between the impetuousness of our instincts and the coldness of pure reason.

The motivating event in Spooner's life was his profound grief that a robot calculated his chances of survival at 45%, while the young girl's was only 11%, and so the robot chose to rescue him.  A human might have added further importance on the girl's life, since she was younger and had more to live for than a mature adult.  Though some may argue that the robot made a valid choice, Spooner reasons that a basic human value is to protect the innocent at all costs.

Superficially, I, Robot appears to be a high-quality summer blockbuster.  There are some very original actions scenes, especially the Tunnel Attack, which shows some very unconventional thinking on the parts of the director and effects team.  The world of the film is very detailed and profoundly fleshed out, down to small details only seen for the briefest of seconds on screen.  The robots are intriguing and believable, and the effects compositing is well done, with no apparent seams or color shifts.  Patrick Tatopoulos' production design and Simon Duggan's cinematography work well together, with an interesting color palette, careful and detailed lighting and lots of deep fields.  We are shown the film's world from the macro to the micro, and the details and continuity hold up well across all scales.  The editing is crisp without calling attention to itself, keeping the story moving at a good pace, but lingering long enough on details the audience needs.  Marco Beltrami's score is subtle, yet does a fine job of building emotional tension, though I must say the opening titles and theme share a lot of elements with Hollow Man, released four years before this film.  There is a unity of vision apparent in this film that is rare in even grossly high-budget sci-fi fare.

The acting is above average, even for "movie stars" like Will Smith.  Bridget Moynahan's Dr. Calvin is well-acted and has a nice development arc, moving from Ice Queen to quite a bit warmer and more human.  Alan Tudyk does a remarkable job animating the "Sonny" character.  The voice is haunting and the motion-capture animation brings his characterization to life in a disturbingly life-from-lifeless way.  The only character that seems unnecessarily two-dimensional is Bruce Greenwood's Lawrence Robertson, the CEO and creator of USR.  The character is not very complex and it would have greatly enhanced the story if he had been motivated by something less pedestrian than mere greed.  His death tries too hard to be ironic and would have had a much higher emotional impact with some simple additions to his persona.  James Cromwell's Dr. Lanning is, perforce, two-dimensional and I was left wanting a bit more back-story to understand his motivations.

I, Robot works for any audience.  It can be mindless eye-candy for the shallow mind, or it offers quite a bit of meat on the bone for the thinking person.  In either case, one walks away feeling like they have gotten their money's worth in all aspects of the production.

The message I walked away with was that judging others for their prejudices is, in itself, just another form of prejudice.

Pride And Prejudice

This week, one story caused a lot of buzz if you could get past all the rubbish regarding the US presidential elections.  In fact, the story nearly made me fall out of my chair laughing.  Granted, I'm a bit strange, but I think you'll see why.

The story involved something called Beauty AI, in which carefully parsed algorithms sampled hundreds of photos of women with the goal of "objectively" selecting the most beautiful woman in the world.  The problem is, the "objective" computer programs selected nearly all white winners.

There are so many things wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin.

To begin with, this "beauty" contest was motivated by something called 'social justice,' which is the new code term for 'political correctness run amok.'    This new social justice thing is basically led by adult versions of those whiny little twits in grade school that ran crying to teacher when someone cut in line.  These annoying little jerks have now set themselves up as arbiters of what is and isn't fair and equitable in life, based on the wildly mistaken assumption that anything is fair and equitable in life.  There are even UNIVERSITY DEGREES in this inane and useless 'subject.'  Imagine the pride you would feel at holding a shiny new degree in 'tattle-telling.'

The premise of this computer-judged beauty contest was that a group of whiners would create an algorithm that would use "objective" criteria to determine whom among the contestants were the most beautiful women.

Let's begin with the utter irony and inconsistency of a 'politically correct' contest judging women objectively.  Now, being the slug-like subhuman white male that I am, I may have misunderstood the argument, but wasn't objectifying women one of the no-nos of political correctness?  In fact, weren't beauty contests supposed to reduce women to commodities?  Maybe I'm just getting old and not keeping up with the times here in the jungles of Borneo.

The next major error in logic was to assume that 'beauty' is capable of being objectified.  Beauty is one of the most subjective standards ever defined by human beings.  It borders on fetish, and is so individualized as to be almost incapable of definition.  What has been and is considered beautiful has changed constantly over the centuries, and varies according to culture, society, the times, and a hundred other arbitrary standards.

The Chinese thought bound feet were beautiful.  Some societies in South America thought pointy heads were beautiful.  Some cultures go gaw-gaw over filed or blackened teeth.  Some cultures think the male of the species defines beauty.

In the West alone, the female form has been wildly manipulated throughout history.  It used to be that women with tans were considered low class.  In some eras, small breasts were desirable, in others it was large.  Europeans used to think American women were prostitutes because they shaved their body hair.  At one time, pooched bellies were all the rage, now it's the neo-starved look.  Piled hair or long and natural?  Clara Bow lips or Angelina Jolie?

The gist of this is that there is no such thing as objective beauty.  It is impossible to describe one 'look' that is universally desirable.  Any attempt to write an algorithm to select beauty on a set of criteria will inevitably be biased towards the aesthetics of the writers.  The symetry of the features, the prominence of the cheekbones, the width of the eyes are all completely subjective markers and will always be selected based on the cultural prejudices of the observer.  To even attempt to divorce beauty from its cultural roots is either hopelessly ignorant or profoundly stupid.  In the case of Beauty AI, I suspect a little of both.

What had me so amused, of course, was all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over the built-in prejudices of the supposedly objective machines.  The pure hubris of these numbnuts thinking they could write a program that wouldn't simply spit back at them what they put into it tickles me to no end.

When combined with efforts such as Microsoft's Tay and similar programs, what we find is that no matter what we do, our creations will always be reflections of ourselves.  Even deeper is that fact that we are all wired at the most basic levels by Nature and culture.  We cannot purge ourselves of something that is fundamental to our personalities.

What we should be learning from all this, but apparently are not, is that humans are prejudiced, opinionated and highly complex creatures that have and will continue to defy efforts to create Homo Politicus Correctus.  Even if we were to eradicate living being and replace them with robots, they would still contain within them the pride and prejudice of their creators.

The question becomes, what kind of spectacular failure will it take for us to realize that we are who we are?  No amount of social engineering, or worse social justice leagues, will change human nature.  It's like spanking a child for hitting his playmate.  What exactly have you taught him?

If we truly want peace on Earth, then let everyone alone and revel in the incredible differences that make up our species.

As the Old Sage so rightly said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Surfing The Wave Of The Future

READER NOTE: Be sure to take our Reader Survey below!

Yes, I'm about to launch into one of my favorite pet peeves again.  Political Correctness.

Whoever came up with this pile of fetid nonsense should be the poster child for euthanasia.  Apparently, Western civilization has learned nothing from the Puritan and Victorian eras, not to mention the Inquisition, Prohibition and the Salem Witch Hunts.  This vile load of offal should be properly disposed of in a bio-hazardous bin and burned.  And if Donald Trump's "presumptive" nomination is any indication, a lot of other folks feel rather the same.

Frankly, the idea of ridding society of prejudices by prejudicing people against being prejudiced is jus so flipping absurd as to make one wonder just how low the average IQ of Western culture can go.

The thing is, people have always been and will always be prejudiced against something.  I hate beets in any form and will not sit at a table on which beets have been placed.  Nothing you say about the taste and nutritional value of beets will ever convince me that those nasty tubers are rightfully food.  Furthermore, nothing you do or say will ever force me to like, or even pretend to like, beets.  If the National Beet Council came to my door with torches and pitchforks, they could not tie me down and pry my jaw open to receive beets.  Fact of life.

That people feel prejudices against other people for even the lamest of reasons is fact.  It won't change, no matter how much you demonize the prejudice.  Oh sure, you can forbid them from saying anything about it, but it won't change the fact that they cross the street to avoid someone they perceive as a threat, no matter how irrational the feeling is.

I don't know about you, but if someone harbors an irrational hate of red hair or Irish ancestry, I would rather know about it than not.  It gives me a much clearer picture of which side of the room I want to stand on, or why someone is doing their level best to sabotage my career.  I can fight the monster I can see.

I suspect that Political Correctness is causing the massive increase in mental illness in the West.  People are depressed and profoundly confused because on the one hand they are told to freely express themselves, but on the other hand are told that 80% of what they want to express is verboten.  Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Back in the old days, a couple who felt strong mutual attraction only had to worry about finding a relatively private location to indulge their passions.  Now, by the time the obligatory interviews, examination of medical records, and political correctness check list, the passion is pretty much gone.  No wonder birth rates are falling.  And maybe that's the idea.

The whole "safe zone" molly-coddling thing astounds me.  The universities these days are no long a place to explore ideas, test theories and develop life-long curiosity.  Instead, they are places that cauterize intellectualism, foster infantilism, and encourage folks to take offense at the least provocations.

Reminds me of those kids who always went crying to momma if you looked cross-eyed at them.  We used to laugh at kids like those.  Now, it's not only Politically Incorrect to laugh at them, that kind of behavior is held up as the Ideal Western Citizen.

The net effect of Political Correctness has been to create an entire society of whiners with skin so thin you could cut it with a damp noodle.  Once upon a time, the ideal was a person who could stand up to criticism, who understood that not everyone in life is going to like them, and that being offended was just part of going about your business.  If something offended you, you simply avoided it, and if you couldn't avoid it, then the adult thing to do was brass it out.

I daresay the result of Political Correctness has been to make life far more uncomfortable than the occasional offense.  One spends far too much time worrying about whether someone could possibly take offence at a statement, and far too little time formulating interesting and stimulating statements.

As a child, my irrational hate of beets meant that I would refuse to touch my dinner and went to be hungry if there were beets on my plate.  As an adult, I discretely ignore them aside, or in the worst case, eat them in order to make the host happy.  I certainly won't whine to momma and run to my safe zone.

In the good old days, polite and civilized adults didn't seek to offend anyone, and woudl reserve certain comments for the proper settings.  What we are and will continue to see for some time is the same thing that happened at the end of the Puritan and Victorian eras - a complete pendulum swing to the opposite side.  When normal human behavior is banned by society, it builds until it explodes with a violent move towards the banned behavior.

Perpare yourself if you are easily offended.  The Anti-Correctness movement is only beginning.

But know this: I won't eat beets!

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.

Believe Only What We Tell You

Stand by for rant..

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program. A whistleblower reported to Judicial Watch that employees were required to bang on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace it with “emerging majorities.” Judicial Watch received the videos pursuant to a May 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Are you weak-minded and insecure?  Join us!

I've had it with mealy-mouthed, touchy-feely psycho-babble mind control.  Granted, this particular incident is with US government employees, and they deserve all the psychological abuse being heaped on them for being part of the problem, but this kind of crap goes on in work places all over America, and it's spreading.

One of the most evil curses ever unleashed on humanity are these creatures called 'social workers'.  These are the 25-year-old childless busy-bodies that tell people how to raise their children because they read it in a book.  These are the mental midgets that tell us pilgrims were illegal aliens because they've never read a f*^&ing history book.  These are the people who unleash 'consensus building' and 'sensitivity training' on normal human beings.

These people need to be eradicated from the list of job types available, along with people who have 'education' degrees.  They are not only useless, they are dangerous.

You see, here's how it works...if you have to make laws and threaten paychecks to get people to adopt your point of view, then it is your opinion that is wrong, not mine.  I have the right to hold any opinion and/or prejudice I want, and you don't have the right to force me otherwise.  If your opinion is so freakin' great, then convince me with a decent argument.

Since these people are incapable of developing arguments in favor of their opinions, they must force people under color of law to adopt their beliefs.  All this 'sensitivity training' and 'cultural diversity' bullshit just smacks of fascist mind control.  What's worse, when a normal human being gets angry at these numb-nuts for forcing their namby-pamby horse-hocky on him, they start with the crap about controlling one's emotions, while at the same time telling him to 'get in touch with his emotions'.

I'm sick of it!

Every truly painful episode in my life has been at the hands of 'social workers'.  If you remember the old TeeVee series "Bewitched", these idiots are Mrs. Cravitz with licenses to forcibly enter your home and your life and start dictating how you should be living.

What's worse than these weasly pieces of human refuse feeling like they can force their point of view on people is that us normal human beings don't stand up to them en masse and heave them out the door.

You see, I have never given an inch to these a--holes, and it just sets them into a tizzy.  They can't deal with it when someone won't roll over and participate in group-think sessions.

That's when they pull out the, "Don't act like that.  You should participate like everyone else," routine.  And that just sets me off.

"Oh, so by your argument, I should have joined the Nazi party or asked for an extra helping of Jonestown Kool-Aid."

"This is just a trust-building/consensus-building exercise.  It's not the same thing."

"Yes it is.  It is training individuals to be part of the hive mentality.  Today it's your lame, useless exercises, but later it's the 'follow or die' commands from evil bastards like your employer."

Once in a while, I can get one or two others to see the light, but mostly people just 'go along to get along'.  And that is the most dangerous mentality ever adopted by the bovine masses.  It is the single most lethal thought process devised by the Controllers.  They shame and cajole people into following whadoatever unholy actions they take by 'bulding consensus'.

It's frightening when I see normally intelligent people group-think because they have deluded themselves into believing their own thoughts and opinions are wrong because they go against the majority.  They fail to see that the majority is a very dangerous thing.  They also fail to comprehend that true individuals have unique thoughts and beliefs, based on their unique set of experiences.

Just because in a group of 30 people, 28 don't agree with you does not make you wrong.  According to your past and your education, your opinions are right for you, and that's all that is needed to make you right.  If someone wants to try and change your mind by arguing a different point of view, then you have the choice to participate in the argument or not.  It does not negate your opinion when you refuse to argue it, though it may imply that you are insecure in your position.

But that's my opinion.  You don't have to adopt it.

You see, in the free marketplace of ideas, a billion people are allowed to have a billion opinions and compete to convince others of the soundness of the reasoning behind them.  If others find a certain opinion worthwhile, based on the completeness of the argument, then others may adopt that opinion, as well.

The general consensus among the masses of humanity is that walking in the rain will get you wet.  However, there are a few who believe that a person can learn to walk between the rain drops.  The few can choose to believe their view is correct, possibly based on experience.  They may also choose to teach others the trick, or not.  They can choose to demonstrate the trick, or not.  It doesn't negate their belief if they don't choose to prove it to others.  After all, do we reject a magician's illusions just because he won't tell us how he did it?

"judas" goat

The fact of the matter is that there is no single right way to think or believe.  If I choose to believe that people with plaid skin are evil low-lifes and I don't want to live or socialize around them, that is my right.  I don't have the right to force you to believe the way I do any more than you have the right to force me not to believe.  If you don't like my beliefs, then you don't have to hang around me.  It's that simple.

In the cited article, the people (granted they are useless eaters living off of others' tax money) were forced to sit around chanting, "The pilgrims were illegal aliens."

First of all, when the pilgrims came to North America, there were no immigration laws, so it is impossible for them to have been illegal immigrants.  Second, I am willing to bet not one of those bucket-heads was American Indian, so they have no logical position to believe that statement.  Third, if they truly believe that statement, then they must immediately pack their bags and return to whatever country from which their ancestors came (assuming they can comply with the immigration laws of said country).  And fourth, the group-think 'facilitators' at those meetings should be rounded up and placed in lead-lined boxes so their stupidity doesn't infect the rest of polite society.

Forcing people to change their vocabulary so that an appropriate adjective, 'minority' is replaced with the ridiculously non-sensical phrase 'emerging majority' just smacks of Orwellian fascism.  It assumes a false premise - that some group or another is becoming a majority.  A group either IS a majority, or it is a minority.  It is a logical absurdity to be an 'emerging majority'.  A group may be rising in numbers and/or influence, but it is not a majority until it has attained that status by head-count.

But really, that is the point of all these 'social workers' and 'consensus builders'.  Their sole purpose in this world is to confuse clear thinking, or in fact, to shut down all thinking.  They are unleashed upon us to tell us what to think and believe so that we become incapable of gain-saying the supposed masters of this world.  In fact, the fascist change agents, a more apt description of 'social workers', are the final result of what we are to become.  We will no longer have our own ideas, we will only be capable of convincing/forcing others to believe whatever slogan is inserted in the gap where our brains used to be.

I am sick to the point of physical dis-ease with all the psycho-babble and the intellectual dishonesty and absurdity that it entails.  The sheer stupidity of things like 'sensitivity training' and 'consensus building' disgusts me.  What's worse are the thinking people who go along with this crap so that they can be thought of as 'team players'.

All of this nonsense is enforced by the implanted need for 'self-esteem'.  Apparently, we can only achieve self-esteem by being part of the group and playing well with others.  Real people, though, derive self-esteem from intellectual integrity in the face of overwhelming pressure to adopt group-think.  To stand alone against peer pressure in order to defend one's opinions is the true source of personal power.

Any idiot can be cajoled into following the crowd.  It takes real inner strength and fortitude to stand against the crowd for what one knows to be the truth.

Fascist change agents are trained in methods of shaming others into following the crowd.  It takes both a strong will and knowledge of how change agents work to fight the urge to 'go along'.  Success in fighting such things not only brings with it true self-esteem, but it strengths the one thing that the supposed masters fear the most: strong, self-assured individuals.

Every child should be shown the behavior patterns of cattle as a means of demonstrating weak-minded group-thinkers.  Cows simply stick their nose up the butt of the one in front of them and mindlessly wander in herds.  They wear paths across fields because not one will stray outside the bounds of herd action.  They will, in fact, follow a judas goat to their certain death because they cannot think beyond the butt in front of them.

And 'judas goat' is an appropriate metaphor for fascist change agents.  They are specifically trained to lead the herd to certain doom, and do it cheerfully and with certainty that they are doing the right thing.  These weak-minded, insecure vacuum-brains are the perfect tools of the supposed masters.

I hate figs.  Can't stand the sight of them, and even the word 'fig' sounds disgusting.  Nothing you say or do will get me to eat or like figs.  It is a personal prejudice I have developed from experience and I refuse to change it.

All people have prejudices developed from personal experience and there is no reason to change those prejudices except that it serves the needs of a supposed master who enjoys making people do, say or think things that they would otherwise abhor.  It's nothing more than a control mechanism for the masses and entertainment for those who fancy themselves as masters of men.

Need a real-life example?  I think the GLBT (gay/lesbian/bi/trannie) movement is populated by idiots and intellectual midgets.  I base my opinion on the fact that these people define themselves and their socio-political agendas solely on the basis of with whom they have sex.  People I choose to associate with are much more diverse in their thinking and able to define themselves based on ideas and achievements, not their sex partners.  No amount of sensitivity training will change my mind on this.

Does that mean I won't associate with homosexuals?  Of course not.  I take each individual at face value.  However, if they try to convince me of some belief based on who they have sex with, I will put up an irrefutable argument that they have a very narrow view of the world - much like a cow - in that they cannot see the world beyond the confines of their beds.

They should have more self-respect and allow themselves to be seen as more than just sex objects.

The only appropriate response to 'social workers' and 'sensitivity training' is to shun the people and events involved.  By acquiescing in any way, we empower and entertain the supposed masters who like to watch us jump through their hoops on command.  If forced to warm a chair in one of these inane 'workshops', do not participate despite any attempt to shame you.

Males are 50% of the population, but only 25% of diversity drones.

What you will find, as I have, is that others in the group feel the same as you, they just don't have the integrity and strength to act alone.  The more you resist, the more others will come to your side of the argument.  The one thing the fascist change agents cannot deal with is obstinate refusal to be bought out.  You can literally see the synapses in their brain-gaps burning out.  You will probably be asked to leave so you don't infect the rest of the herd with independent thought.

In order to save society, it is absolutely necessary to put an end to this touchy-feely crap before it destroys the last vestiges of true humanity.  Real diversity is a thriving marketplace of competing opinions, not lock-step spouting of platitudes and slogans.  In fact, if 'social workers' are made pariahs in the way smokers have been, we would see the profession die out - as well it should - because these weak, insecure individuals require social acceptance for their self-esteem.  Remove that carrot and they will quickly find something productive to do.

The next time you are confronted by a 'social worker' in a 'diversity workshop', tell them that they are being very insensitive to your diverse point of view and that they should immediately resign and seek gainful employment.

Skin Deep

Indonesia is probably one of the most racist places I've ever been.  Yes, that's right.  Racist.

I've been to 46 countries on five continents (Australia is still a continent, isn't it?).  I've lived in several US states, Mexico, Ireland, England, Spain, Germany, and Indonesia.  I grew up in Texas in the 60s with a father who was Depression Era (the first big one) and a WWII vet.  To him, a racist epithet was a common adjective used to describe people of all stripes.  I went to school in lily white Catholic institutions where we had one Asian, four blacks and a South African (still white, but...).

Through all of this, I managed to maintain a fairly egalitarian point of view, thanks to my mother.  I don't look up to anyone, nor do I look down on them.  We are all God's children, as far as I'm concerned.

When I stepped off the plane here in Indonesia, it was my first experience in Southeast Asia.  When I looked around, I saw one of the most homogeneous societies I had ever experienced.  I know it's trite, but they all looked the same to me.  In fact, if I had to describe an Indonesian for a police report, the best I could do is, "Dark hair, dark eyes, brown skin, and about 5'-4"."  I've just described 99.9% of the indigenous population.

So how could these people be so freakin' racist?

The first thing you learn here is that if you are white, you are dripping money all over the place and you hand it out like candy at the dentist's office.  We tip what, 15% or so?  A really good Indonesian tip is 10 cents.  So when a foreigner comes along handing out tips in the amounts that we are used to, then we train everyone we come in contact with that we are filthy rich on our worst days.

So, the first form of racism you encounter here is that, as a white guy, you can literally make people look like cartoons, because dollar signs appear in their eyes as soon as they see you walk in the door.  Is that racism? Sure.  It only happens to white guys.  On top of that, Indonesians will blatantly lie, cheat and steal from you because you are so filthy rich.  The irony?  Many of the middle class here are much richer than most of their counterparts in the West now.  And even some of the poorest still own land and there is no property tax here.

OK, so enough of that.  That's the obvious stuff.  It's easy to pick out a white guy in a group of 300 million brown ones.

But it goes much deeper than that.  Indonesians are deeply prejudiced against each other, based on which kampung they are from, or island, or (get this) skin color.

The most discriminated group here is the Chinese.  There are two primary groups, other than foreigners.  There's the pribumi, or aboriginal, and the "others".  The others are composed mostly of Chinese, who have been coming here and intermarrying for centuries.  Doesn't matter.  If the eyes are a certain shape and the skin a certain shade of yellow, they are Chinese and are generally reviled.

During the economic crisis of 1998, the Chinese were murdered wholesale and their homes raided for anything that was portable.  Didn't matter that they had been here for generations, they were Chinese and deserved to be attacked for that reason alone.

My wife's grandfather was mainland Chinese.  He married a Java girl and they raised a family in central Java.  My wife speaks fewer words of Mandarin than I do, but she is fluent in Javanese and Indonesian,  Yet, she was attacked and had to have round-the-clock guards for her and her kids back in 1998, for not other reason than she looked Chinese.  Even now, I've heard the worst kind of insults hurled at her simply because there is Chinese blood in her family three generations ago.

OK, so we've knocked out the obvious.  White guys stand out like sore thumbs.  The Chinese, once you learn how to look at people here, can be discerned by the shape of their eyes and other superficial features.

But, I said this was the MOST racist place I had ever been.  How can the pribumi folks be prejudiced against each other?  Well...

The darker brown you are, the lower your station in life.  The implication is that dark skin means outdoor labor, and if you work outdoors, then you must be low class, right?  The lowest of these are the Ambonese and Papuans.  These folks look a lot like the Australian aboriginals and even pure Africans.  Being quite dark, they are universally reviled throughout the country.  As a consequence, they are some of the most violent folks here, since they have to defend themselves from near-constant taunts.

Next up are the somewhat lighter brown folks from the hinterlands.  These include most of the outer islanders and country folks.  Some are quite a bit shorter, as well, even to other Indonesians.  Once you know what to look for, you can usually spot them right off.  In fact, most of the maids, nannies and other domestic help fall into this category.  They are spoken to and treated accordingly, which is to say rough.

As you move up the skin shades, you get into office workers and such.  Even here, there's a pecking order that is so subtle as to take years to be able to perceive the differences.  At this level, we usually find the Java and Sumatera folks.  One level of distinction might be the number of generations away from jungle dweller you are.  Around these parts, that may be as little as one for a lot of folks.  You may have a degree and an office job, but you are still at the bottom of the totem pole because your folks still live in the forest.

The next level of discrimination is religion.  Now this gets downright nasty sometimes.  The Christians are pig eaters.  The Muslims are exclusionary.  They square off constantly in politics and culture, with Muslims bombing churches and the Christians constantly trying to convert everyone.  The Hindus stick pretty much to Bali and east Java and the Buddhists are pretty quiet, but everyone gets their share of the fun.  After all, the Buddhists are usually of Chinese decent (see earlier point).

When it gets right down to it, it reminds me of the old Star Trek episode with Frank Gorshin.  Two aliens, the last of their kind, are locked in mortal combat and hatred.  The crew can't tell them apart, but we eventually learn that their black and white halves are exactly opposite.

It's not unlike white folks who discriminate against each other for being rednecks, or white trash, or blue collars, or white collars.

It leads one to conclude that everyone is hard-wired to find someone else to shit on to make themselves feel good.  Thankfully, Indonesia doesn't suffer from Political Correctness, so all this is still out in the open where it can be dealt with.  In the West, it's been chased into the closet so you never really know what someone else really thinks or feels.  Nor can it be dealt with, since it's all hidden and no one really knows who thinks what about whom, so we can discuss it and fix it.

There's still hope for Indonesia.

If you are routinely attacked by people wearing red coats, then you learn to stay away from anyone wearing a red coat.  Some prejudices are earned.  Others are inherited from old generations and the reasons for the hatreds are long forgotten.  Isn't it time we all took a hard look at our prejudices and think about whether they are earned or just old wives' tales?  Perhaps we could dispense with a lot of the world's problem if we just took everyone at face value.

I try to live by very profound words from a man with his head screwed on straight.  His name was Will Rogers, and what he said was, "I never met a man I didn't like."  Think about that one for a long time and see if those aren't some of the wisest words you've ever heard.  If we all live by that, might could actually achieve some good stuff on this planet.

But frankly, I still hate beets and nothing you say or do will convince me otherwise.