You Ain't Him

Story link: https://www.rt.com/uk/417075-icymi-snowflake-offended-guide/

You know what really pisses me off? Bourgeois #Bumbledicks who spout off their overfed pie-holes about how they hate "white" culture and think "White" culture should be torn down. These puffed-up, sophmoric shit-wits sit in their protective arm chairs in New York or Los Angeles and complain about something they've never experienced. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.

I've been to 59 countries (and counting), many of them in Europe and North America, which are the supposed centers of "white" culture, and I have yet to encounter "white" culture.

I have greatly enjoyed Irish culture, German culture, Italian culture, Spanish culture, Portuguese culture, French culture, Dutch culture, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Icelandic, even British culture. I have even experienced Swiss culture, which despite being composed of three distinct cultures, is nevertheless distinct in and of itself. And yes, even poor old Canada has a unique culture.

Russia and Greece have wonderfully distinct cultures even though they both use Cyrillic alphabets. I don't think anyone would argue that Israel has its own culture, despite being based on war, death and suffering.

I have been to 48 of the 50 US states, and each one of them has a very distinct culture.

South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have completely unique cultures.

Just where, exactly, is this "white" culture the Bumbledicks keep railing against? Apparently, they don't get out much. This is the problem with lard-butt boneheads who look at a couple of travel sites on the internet and think they've experienced culture. These dim-bulbs have more than likely never been to an art museum, opera or symphony, so they wouldn't know culture if it bit them on their over-protected posteriors.

When you listen to these uneducated blowhards talk, it's always in gross generalizations - black culture, white culture, hispanic culture. Hell, they barely speak English, much less Spanish or Portuguese, and wouldn't know Hispania if it slapped them across the face and rubbed their swollen noses in it.

These Bumbledicks talk about Native Americans with the wave of a hand in the general direction of North America, forgetting that there were/are hundreds of distinct cultures, and forgetting that America also applies to Central and South.

These disgusting, small-minded Bumbledicks want to put the world in tidy little boxes and label them according to which way the wind in blowing that day. They are so terrified of leaving their isolated, echo chamber compounds that they really have no idea what the world is really like. They spend their entire lives watching echo-chamber programming and spouting their slogans on echo-chamber social media that they don't have time to actually go out and subject their senses to real culture.

I get attacked all the time by these effluvium-encrusted snake tits all the time. They say I can't possibly understand the plight of the (insert box du jour), and that I belong to the "privileged white" box and should be punished. They never bother to notice I live in Indonesia, one of five countries I have lived in, speak 17 languages, am an artist, and have been around the world several times the hard way (not flying). In fact, I'm not even "white" - I'm pinkish-red with multi-colored spots. None of that, including my two non-white wives, disqualifies me from "white" privilege boxes or "white" culture boxes. None of that fits their tidy little categories that enable their hate and bile.

Somehow these lunatics earned a weekend furlough from the asylum and never went back. Unfortunately, the guards too overpaid and under-motivated to go find them. They weaselled their way into areas with microphones and started broadcasting their insanity to a nonplussed world. It's a sad but true fact that we must all live with that mistake we sane folk can take the microphones away from them.

The heart of the matter is that us sane folks believe that everyone deserves a chance to express their opinion. It's called free speach, and we consider it a valueable natural right that no one can abridge. However, these stoop-headed boat anchors want to spew their sputum all over us, while denying us the right to shower off afterwards. Don't know about you. but this doesn't fly in my cabin.

Sorry, Bumbledicks, it's time to put you down. You have gotten out of hand and you are now a danger to polite society. Your minions think violence againe person and property is a good idea. Your minions think that gagging reasonable voices is just hunky-dory. Your minions are choking out the good grass with weeds. This cannot be tolerated, even by exceedingly tolerant people. You get to speak, but you aren't allowed to hush. Your right to live is based entirely on your willingness to let live.

Take your hateful, segregationist, privileged rubbish and go crawl back into the cave you slithered out of. The clear thinkers are retaking the asylum and Bumbledicks aren't allowed to roam freely. The way you should have dont it was to express your opinion, let others do the same, and argue based on facts. You blithering fools dove off some deep end the rest of us cannot and will not follow.

Diversity includes everyone or it includes no one. That's how it works.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and you ain't him/her/it/them/xim/xer.

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.

Review: Discovering A Whole New Trek

To get disclosure out of the way, I've been a Star Trek fan since the original show was in first run back in the 60s.  I'm not a Trekkie or Trekker, though.  I have watched all the movies a dozen times, I can practically quote every episode of the original series, I dutifully watched the animated series, and stuck with the Next Gen through the rough early years to actually get some good Trek again. 

However, I've never read a Trek novel or been to a convention, nor have I ever seen more than a couple of episodes of Deep Space 9 and Voyager, though I must admit that by muting the theme song, I found Enterprise quite entertaining.

With that list of qualifications, I will offer my two-cents' worth on the new Star Trek Discovery series recently launched by CBS as a means to drag hard-core followers into its online pay service.  I watched the first two episodes - ostensibly the pilot/teaser for the rest of the series, online for free on YouTube.  I hope CBS understands that their signals don't reach Indonesia...yet.

First impression?  Why the hell is everything these days dark and moody?  What the hell ever happened to good lighting?  And while I'm on a rant, every damn editor in Hollywood needs to be fired immediately.  I can't see anything, and what I can see is cut so fast as to not let me enjoy the settings that have some light on them.  And who is the drunkard that shot this thing?  Has he/she/it never learned to balance and level a camera on the tripod?  Hint, there is a knob under the head and a spirit level on top.  Loosen the damn knob and adjust until the bubble is in the center circle.

For cryin' out loud, what are they teaching in film schools these days?

Now that I have that out of my system, I can rant about everything else.  Oh, and if you can here for lots of poetry and praise, you might as well leave now.  Ain't gonna happen.  And one more thing, I don't give a flying leap at a rolling donut about spoilers.  There may or may not be some here.  That's your problem.  Read with your eyes closed so you don't see any.

I am sick to death of Political Correctness being shoved down my throat from every angle.  With American "entertainment", it was the Jews for decades, now it's every subclass of human being one can imagine, and not a few that one couldn't imagine before it was stuffed in one's gullet.

Star Trek Discovery (pilot) follows the story of one Michael Burnham, who appears to be half black human and half white Vulcan, and is the step-whatever of Sarek (if you don't know who Sarek is, go look it up).  He/she has a human name and ears, but a distinctly Vulcan attitude and background.  He/she is also fairly androgenous, except in scenes where he/she takes off his/her clothes, and then suddenly he/she is a she.

We begin on the bridge of the USS Shenzhou, staffed by vaguely Asian crew (even the aliens) as a concession to the Chinese masters of Hollywood, so the vast markets there can be tapped and wallets emptied.  The ship encounters the Klingons for the first time in 100 years, and of course, things get nasty pretty fast, as the title of Part 2 says, "The Battle of the Binary Stars."  I'll get to the Klingons in a moment.

At this point, I will admit that I like the set designs, costumes and effects - what little of them I can see without lighting.  The designs exist somewhere between the functional blues and polished blacks of Enterprise, and the pastel beige of the original series.  I would have enjoyed this aspect of the show much more if they had hired a lighting director and a DP that knew how to balance and level a camera, not to mention an editor that would linger on the wide shots for just a second or two to establish the settings.

Technically, the show looks great.  I very much enjoyed that part, but that is obviously not a foundation for a good story.  That requires writing that is fun and engaging, not hell-bound determined to hammer the audience over their heads with Progressive propaganda.

This brings us to the Klingons, and what the hell happened here?

The central figure among the Klingons is a character apparently called T'Kuvma, though it's hard to tell because the writing and editing are so damned frenetic, we never get a clear introduction to any of the characters.  Let me reiterate that this show looks as if it was edited by a jonesing cocaine addict.

The Klingons have been completely redesigned and apparently have not discovered the Universal Translator yet, since they all speak Klingon throughout the entire show - except for a couple of lines - as if their mouths are full of marbles, or in this case, dental appliances.  Furthermore, the subtitles flash by so fast that I had to pause playback several hundred times to get a significant part of the story from the text.

And why are the Klingons the only aliens in the whole damn show that don't speak English?  Even the Vulcans speak English to each other when no one else is around (Michael and Sarek in the jail cell), as do the training computers on Vulcan.

T'Kuvma (a Vulcan name using old series conventions) is an obviously black Klingon, unlike the submission pale blue ones, who thumps his Klingon bible and has a rather nasty temper.  He is seeking to unite his people under theocratic dictatorship using a ship lined on the outside with dead Klingon bodies.  This "sarcophagus" ship is apparently from a Star Trek novel some years ago and has never made an appearance until now, so it's purpose is as much your guess as mine.

Despite the ham-fisted effort to shove Progressive propaganda down my throat, the lack of lighting, unlevel camera work, and an obvious coffee addict editing, I really liked the little bit of CGI work I could focus on.  The battle scene in the second half of the show was quite good, even though I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.

I particularly enjoyed the fact that the CGI folks finally realized that space is three-dimentional.  Ships approach each other in all directions and orientations, which is I believe the first time I have seen this.  The closest thing to this instance was in the Wrath of Khan, with the original cast, where Nicholas Meyer had the ships coming at each other from all directions.  Kudos to whoever decided that space is much more interesting than sea level.

That I spent a lot of time noticing the technical aspects of the show should tell the reader a lot.  I liked the costumes.  The creature makeup was quite good and much more interesting than the old Star Trek stand-by of glue-on prostetics.  The sets were spacious and detailed, and quite interesting to look at, when I could see any detail.  I also liked that starlight came blazing through the windows and lit the interiors, something picked up from the J. J. Abrams movies, although whoever put lens flairs in this show should be thoroughly beaten, then fired.

The score was unremarkable and the theme sounds like the preamble to a complete piece of music.  It is also completely unhummable and I couldn't whistle a single bar if my life depended on it.  The opening titles reminded me of Six Feet Under or the film Hollow Man, but it was interesting from breaking the old convention of showing the ship blasting through the screen every two seconds.

In the end, there are some hopeful elements that make me think there might be some redeeming value to the show going forward, but I'm not holding my breath.

A hallmark of Star Trek is the relentlessly positive Humanism that makes the universe it presents seem exciting and desirable.  It appears that the new take on the series is about to make a hard Left turn into relentless Progressivism, with lots of darkness and moral ambiguity.  If that's the case, then all is lost.  There is an endless pile of such shows out there that make me feel worse about the human condition.  The attractive aspect of Star Trek is that it left the darkness behind and didn't dwell on differences, but made each human able to advance one's self through mental exercise and physical achievements, not because they were members of annointed victim group du jour.

Technically, the show is fun and interesting.  Let's hope that it grows out of this whiny Progressive phase into something more like Star Trek.  I'll stick around for another episode or two to give it a chance, because I'm an optimist, but I will bail quickly if I don't get what I want from it.

And as a side note, how come we have to keep beating the same time period to death?  Why can't someone make a Star Trek set 100 or 200 years in the future?  Let's do some real exploration and take ideas and discoveries of the past 50 years into account?  I don't give a flip about canon and faithfulness to timelines, but the original series jumped way out into the future.  Do it again!

And here's a show idea, and if I see it on-screen, I better see a story credit for me:

According to the laws of physics, phasers and photon torpedoes don't just stop in space, they continue forever until they hit something.  So what happens to all those shots that miss?  Why not have a stray photon torpedo hit a planet hundreds of light years away, and the creatures trace it back to it's origins and come looking for revenge?

Just a thought.

Carnies and Rubes, Part 3

The reader is encouraged to see Parts 1 and 2 to follow the argument presented here.

The Protocols is an extensive document comprised of 29 theses that culminated in global domination.  What has kept my attention for more than 20 years is the fact that this document is a virtual blueprint for the events of the 20th century, and into the 21st.  It is inconceivable to me that a "fake" document dating to at least the late 1800s could have so accurately predicted world events 120 years into the future, unless it is an actual plan that has indeed been enacted by whomever is responsible.

Due to limitations and the fact that a full analysis of The Protocols could absorb volumes of books, I will focus superficially on a handful of the theses given, and hope that the reader will be intrigued enough to read the rest for himself and make his own conclusions.

We start with Protocol No. 7:

"5. We must compel the governments of the GOYIM to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" - THE PRESS, WHICH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE DISREGARDED, IS ALREADY ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS.

"6. In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan."

Again, I remind the reader that this document dates to at latest the 1890s.  These two paragraphs come under the heading "UNIVERSAL WAR".Notice that the writer says "they" will use terror in Europe to keep the nations there in line, and control the narrative through the media - which "they" state is already completely in their control.

In the second paragraph, the writer states clearly that the militaries of the US, China and/or Japan will be used if terror attacks fail to keep the nations in line.  Here, it is instructive to note World Wars 1 and 2, where the US was tricked into joining both times, and whose outcomes led first to the League of Nations, then to the UNnied Nations.

I don't think I need to rehearse the facts concerning media control, as everything from Project Mockingbird to the 2016 election clearly shows that the assertion of media control is quite true.

In Protocol No. 9, we find the following:

"10. WE HAVE FOOLED, BEMUSED AND CORRUPTED THE YOUTH OF THE "GOYIM" BY REARING THEM IN PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO US TO BE FALSE ALTHOUGH IT IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INCULCATED.

"13. You may say that the GOYIM will rise upon us, arms in hand, if they guess what is going on before the time comes; but in the West we have against this a manoeuvre of such appalling terror that the very stoutest hearts quail - the undergrounds, metropolitans, those subterranean corridors which, before the time comes, will be driven under all the capitals and from whence those capitals will be blown into the air with all their organizations and archives."

The first paragraph clearly indicates the use of education as a weapon.  By completely befuddling schoolchildren and teaching outright lies and facts, they will be incapable of thinking clearly or independently.  I daresay this is precisely the case in the US, if not the Western world.

The second paragraph seems to imply the use of massive terror attacks on the order of 9/11, 7/7 and so forth, as a means to control and manipulate the masses and the laws.  It also mentions the construction of underground bases from which to launch the complete destruction of capital cities, along with the full infrastructure of government and all historical records.  One envisions Dick Cheney sitting in his war bunker on September 11th, as the records of the IRS, NSA, FBI, and more are destroyed.

I will leave the reader with a selection from Protocol No. 13, which should need no commentary on my part for the aware mind.  Remeber: 1890s:

 "3. In order to distract people who may be too troublesome from discussions of questions of the political we are now putting forward what we allege to be new questions of the political, namely, questions of industry. In this sphere let them discuss themselves silly! The masses are agreed to remain inactive, to take a rest from what they suppose to be political (which we trained them to in order to use them as a means of combating the GOY governments) only on condition of being found new employments, in which we are prescribing them something that looks like the same political object. In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about WE FURTHER DISTRACT THEM WITH AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, PASTIMES, PASSIONS, PEOPLE'S PALACES .... SOON WE SHALL BEGIN THROUGH THE PRESS TO PROPOSE COMPETITIONS IN ART, IN SPORT IN ALL KINDS: these interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them. Growing more and more unaccustomed to reflect and form any opinions of their own, people will begin to talk in the same tone as we because we alone shall be offering them new directions for thought ... of course through such persons as will not be suspected of solidarity with us.

"4. The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service. Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the GOYIM with progress, till there is not among the GOYIM one mind able to perceive that under this word lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us, the Chosen of God, its guardians."

More to come...