Banner Rotate

Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Friday, June 30, 2006

Elihau Asheri's brutal execution: One more nail in the world's coffin because of these savage extremists!

I came across a piece of news that has left my liver overflowing with bile; I can taste my rotting bodily fluids on the tip of my lips because of the extended irritation brought on by the following excerpt from Yahoo News.

“A Palestinian militant group said early Thursday it killed an 18-year-old Israeli settler kidnapped earlier in the West Bank.” – Yahoo News.

Just great; the cock-sucking bastards, strike again! And then I have to put up with these wet-blankets, sobbing about the misery that the Palestinians endure, with the ultimate goal of offering some kind of twisted justification for the fuckin' execution of a mere, innocent, teenager. Not to mention, this pathetic ordeal, and completely barbaric murder will initiate another chain of issues; not that the soldier kidnapping isn’t already a problem. Y’know what? I can understand wrong, but that is the point; wrong is wrong! These fucking whores, who call themselves freedom fighters, are nothing more than wastes of human reproductive resources who should be forced into oral sex with the barrel end of a fuckin’ loaded shotgun.

To all of you, I can bet a dead Arab aristocrat’s fortune, that these shmucks will use the tainted history of Palestine as a twisted excuse for this execution – a justification for this murder, and how all Israelis deserve the same treatment. The evil, dumb, whores! These bastards should bite on a fuckin’ hand-grenade, and pull the pin while they’re at it; I’d like to see these apologist heads explode into a bloody spew, simply to compliment their disgustingly large, yet irrational egos.

Yes, stereotype all the Israelis and even their army-men; oh, but the same can’t be done for every Palestinian, right; despite the fact that they usually gather in the masses – majority – to celebrate all western misery and horrors. Irrespective of the slew of retarded, yet painfully damaging suicide bombings, the entire group shouldn’t be judged on such conception. Palestinians shouldn’t be stereotyped, when nearly a bulk majority of their populace, overtly condones such barbarianism; celebrates terrorist attacks; votes in theocratic bastards like Hamas as their leaders, and then roots on for these savage motherfuckers. What the fuck, man? I SAY FUCK ANYONE WHO ASCRIBES TO THIS POLICY! YES, TEH KADE IS TEH PISSED!

The politically correct world, expects observers not to stereotype the bland, linearly Islamist mindset of the Palestinians; I can actually understand the progressive philosophy that drives such an approach. However, I will declare today that even the most passive of these simple-minded shmucks, usually sit back and do nothing at the least; otherwise, they actually defend their terrorist counterparts – even celebrating their vile acts. Oh, and these very morons expect not to be stereotyped, and to be treated as passive humans – sure! What about the Israelis all this while? Oh, stereotype ‘em all! As far as the morons are concerned, the entire Israeli populace is nothing more than variety of Ariel Sharon clones and hybrids, at best. Oh, and we can bet that they’ll use their bloodied history to justify the death of this meagre eighteen-year-old; I hope the apologists of this vile act, bite the curb over this matter, because this is what really burns me up – defending one wrong with reference to another wrong.

“When will you motherfuckers get it? Two rights don’t make a fuckin’ wrong! It isn’t like multiplying a negative by a negative! It’s adding a negative, TO a negative, at best! Oh, don’t like me berating your culture, ideals, and history? Well fuck you! I don’t wanna’ minimise these peoples suffering, but it’s about time someone grew up, rose above their pettiness, and identified the wrongs, regardless of their group allegiance/social conditioning. I’d like to see nationwide condemnation over the death of this Israeli – I’d like to see a majority of Palestinians, rise above their petty, childish religious martyr complex, and identify the objective wrong in this situation! Only then will I detract these comments! And each of you readers can bet your sweet little g-spots that such an ordeal will never come to pass! I know that idiot-mentality, and I despise it with reason! STUPID FUCKIN’ MORONS!” – Closure.

May Elihau Asheri’s untimely murder serve as a reminder, and legacy for the future fucktards to glean some common sense out of; there is an idealist within me, and there is a lesson in this poor, young, innocent teenager’s death by cold-blooded murder. After all, I do hope that one of these days, these morons abrogate the idea of avenging one another by killing more innocents in between. Thus far, we’ve just had one idiot, kill another innocent, then another idiot, kill another idiot in the opposing camp; I can bet that this’ll go on till all that’s left of humanity is the politicians and malicious leaders. We can bet our life blood that it will boil down to the cockroaches and malicious political puppet masters after the apocalypse; hell, they’ll even outlive the cockroaches!

I used to idealise about the mass-public, rising above this mundane cycle of “murder and be murdered” and realise that they only punish other bystanders in lieu of their hatred for certain leaders – victims of lazy thinking and excessive generalisation (Those evil masterminds still live, while a poor nobody dies, you fuckwits!). However, the nihilist within me is starting to prevail, as I watch more of these moronic bystanders, continue getting engulfed in their petty chains of vengeance, while the actual strategic, idealistic corrupters, stand behind the frontlines, watching the fire works! It’s almost like watching a bloody videogame, where the laypersons are the game content; being controlled and continuing this mindless droning and killing over issues that they ought to rise above; but of course, being petty videogame content, they’re unable to exude true intellectual volition. This world’s not going to hell – it is hell, a burning ball of mud, corrupted by immense stupidity and a negative need for vengeance while the puppet masters are the only ones that walk away unscathed from this cataclysm… perhaps the morons deserve such a fate for being this blind!

Elihau Asheri – may your legacy rest in peace, despite your terrible and unwarranted ordeal.

Another excerpt:
“Palestinian militants say they have killed a kidnapped Israeli settler in
retaliation for airstrikes by the Israeli army and increased military pressure
in Gaza. No word on the fate of an Israeli soldier held hostage. (June 28)” –
Yahoo News.

Someone had better realise my dark desires by kidnapping one of these so-called militants; torturing them profusely; dicing open their scrotum, and abandoning them in leprosy contaminated chamber, open to contracting testicular leprosy! I want their fuckin’ nuts to sizzle, burn, rot and then fall off! The vile bastards deserve nothing short of demonic suffering for their disgusting values, and inhumane myopia.

- The enraged nihilist, Kade.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Fox News: Bad for blood-pressure!

It’s official; there’s a prominent correlation between the increase in my blood-pressure and the act of watching Fox News. I am not kidding -- this coming from an individual who has very low blood-pressure -- that when I watch Faux, I get splitting headaches, followed by an intense case of television-rage.

“Kade, you crazy ranting bastard! We get it! You hate Fox News, simply because it doesn’t pander to your extremely secularist ego. At least they’re not biased!” - Rhetoric.

That is correct; but not being biased? Please, get out, and get bent; I didn’t know what a bias was until I managed to watch Faux News. For over five years, I have heard morons bitch about CNN and other news broadcasting networks, harbouring this innate leftist bias. Now, I’ve been watching this shit for a long time, and many would know that I have robust experience with each news service; I find them dull. Do you know why I find them dull? Because all I see are very bland, dispassionate recitations of facts; I rarely hear any kind of bias, left or right.

“I see the news piece about George Bush choking on a pretzel. There’s nothing remotely hilarious about how the tale is told; however, watching a video of Bush trotting about with a bruise under his eye was fuckin’ hilarious on its own, because he is Bush! CNN didn’t have a damn thing to do with that! That’s Bush’s innate gift that shines through his eccentric-grey-monkey looks, and I’d be damned if the humour value of the story is attributed to CNN’s so-called leftwing bias, when its clearly Bush’s funny little mug! I don’t want the damned CNN dullards to get credit for the fuckin’ slapstick connotation behind President Monkey-Boy’s face! And mind you, I don’t have a major problem with Bush himself… just don’t believe things are turning out the way they ought to be. Guy should’ve just liberated Iran - now that’s a country in need of some dire liberation and constitutional reforms.” - Immediate point.

I am not sorry when I say that I don’t see any leftwing innuendos; the only place where I see leftist innuendos, is fuckin’ Comedy Central, and that stuff just rocks. However, in all fairness, I did decide to put this belief to test, because as you know I started to subject myself to a bit of Fox News from time to time. Should we care to ponder my immediate reaction? I was actually excited, for once. For the first time; I wasn’t laughing at the actual clips of politicians, but also laughing at the hosts of the various quirky shows that forge the twisted Fox News talent palette.

I shall acknowledge wholeheartedly that Fox is in a league of its own; it doesn’t come off as a standard news channel. Want to know why? Because it’s the first channel where there’s a very dead-fuckin’-obvious spin on virtually everything. It’s like being subjected to a video-rant version of a series of childish columns; conjectures that support rightwing ideals, and not recitations and plain reports. CNN and BBC are informative; but they bore me because they recite what’s happening, period - boring. With Fox on the other hand; I have to watch all these uptight shmucks, soiling themselves on live television, while popping multiple veins in their heads from the immense excitement brought on by their rightwing disgust against our so-called immoral world.

“It’s irritating, it’s annoying, it’s asinine, it gets me riled up, and fuckin’ hell… it does excite me, doesn it!? It burns me! Even if I don’t enjoy it; I can’t deny the irritability that’s brought on by just thirty-minutes of fuckin’ faux news!” - Contention number two.

Therefore, it is no myth; news channels can be biased. The only delusion that most of my rightwing buddies in the US of A suffer from; Fox News is the only true shining example of an unbiased source - the ultimate oxymoron. Oh, and don’t even get me started on the cheap slogans that are just becoming a tired old joke. “Fair and Balanced” they say? If it was fair and balanced, it would lose its only appealing factor: the endless and psychotically hilarious raves of rightwing incoherencies. It is biased, because rather than getting frustrated with the news, I am more busy developing intestinal ulcers over the fuckin’ news casters; show hosts; and of course, the endless shams upon shams that mean squat in the bigger picture. Watching Hannity and Colmes has probably become the bane of my life; yes, just the ideal example of fair and balanced - a rightwing zealot, paired with a leftist sissy! Every single day, I feel like bitch slapping Hannity with something hard, while harbouring the urge to use Colmes’ body as the item to bitch-slap with, simply because of his wimpy nature. Oh, and not to mention, Bill O’Reilly; because I can’t count how many times Billy Boy’s gotten on my bad side; I tried to agree with him, but he just pisses me off to no ends! I mean, just recently, he decided to bash Sweden for its secularity, and that’s really going too far in my books.

“You know what, Billy Oh-shut-the-fuck-up! That was a shot that hit me close to home! I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; America rocks, but there’s nothing you and your cronies can do to hold even a remote candle to the Swedish paradigm. Here’s to true freedom - here’s to secularism! And if you don’t like it, you can move your ass out of America -- reducing its fundamentalist index -- and settle in Saudi Arabia, where the government gets to decide your religious protocol! Stupid fuckin’ Bill, and his completely incomprehensible take on reality! Moron blatantly ignores and contradicts the very elements that made his America the free nation that it is today!” - Closure.

Two points there, Billy.
A - You're biased.

A crisis of perception is rotting in our hands like the dying body of someone or something significant; one specifically driven by a poor comprehension that emanates from the voices in rightwing media. The ideal highlight coming a few days ago, when Bill O’Reilly basically defecated on-air about the sad misfortune that befell two, young US troops. According to him, he wondered whether CNN would touch on this; CNN did do repeats of the story… they actually gave more information than Fox News. As a matter of fact, Fox decided to completely leave out a little fact that it was the local citizens that drew the attention to the bodily remains, and that the same citizens professed suspicions about the bodies being rigged with explosives. Of course, it was not the duty of Fox to be truly informative; what, with all the majority of politically charged opinions, who’d have time to offer a full report? “Oh, Mr. Storm, does that mean that Bill O’Reilly’s wrong?” asks the little kid; and to that I give a hearty “hell yeah!” However, Mr. O’Reilly offered more anomalies in his tirade, from which, one could harvest more critiques. You see, while challenging most of the international media to draw attention to the story of the two deceased soldiers, which they did, Billy-boy also implied that most of these media outlets are in fact, only capable of highlighting stories that demean the integrity of the military; alluding of course, to the plethora of controversy following civilian-killings in Iraq, and the infamy surrounding Guantanamo Bay.

Oh, and just to address O’Reilly’s retort about the outrage of one viewer on his comments on BBC; yes, the comment where he condemns BBC as a network that indulges in American bashing:
“Well, Billy boy… Any honest news source that is actually committed to just giving out news, will sometimes project news pieces that don’t paint your country in good light. Wanna’ know why, Billy Boy? Because, nothing’s fuckin’ perfect; not even your America and its very distorted international image, and its own, equally distorted perception on the globe’s opinion on American matters. Your country has some model concepts with regards to freedom, but it also revels in a considerable bit of infamy when it comes to quite a few international blunders… I mean, c’mon; you guys whine about a fuckin’ national anthem being sung in another language! The world laughs at the pettiness of the matter, and hence, it’s a product of BBC’s perverted agenda? What a load of shit! Please, no need to get defensive about it; because BBC is just stating the truth, and you ought to learn to start handling the truth. Hell, even some of your commentaries could be interpreted as American bashings!” - Urgent contention.

Therefore, it’s not an issue about being fair and balanced; Bill O‘Reilly‘s emotional tantrums support such an opinion. After all, Billy -- in his politically and emotionally charged contentions (the man was using his squeaky voice, for fuck’s sake) -- himself, basically wants the likes of CNN and BBC to serenade the two soldiers, while completely laying off stories about civilian killings. In essence; controlled stories, geared towards projecting a very myopic point-of-view that is clearly polarised towards stroking the conservative American culture. What the fuck, man? That is not true and free media! CNN and BBC bore the fuck out of me, because they largely recite everything that they can cover - everything possible; rarely do I hear a political opinion, other than the crap from the nutty freaks they invite on Hard Talk. Of course HardTalk in itself lost its spark after that dude, what's his name... yeah, Sebastian Spence, had his departure (damn, he was cool). Anyway, point being that news-sources like CNN and BBC don’t really make passionate contentions. In the case of the two deceased soldiers, and their remains; both channels offered full reports, without making it sound passionate per se; but they did give a wholesome report. Of course, they also dispassionately mentioned the dynamics of the stories behind the civilian killings, and the human rights issues of Guantanamo Bay. Why is this notion occurring? Because they’re a fuckin’ news service; a media outlet dedicated to reporting news and not regulated information, which is intentionally filtered to nurture a specific mindset and political paradigm - that, dear fuckers, is a bias and a political agenda. Those two channels bore me, because they report everything; Fox News amuses me, because it reports very little; discusses issues with an energy that clearly favours rightwing agendas, followed by a myriad of raving lunatics, spewing rightwing ideologies under the intellectually insulting, shameful commandment, that goes something like “Fair and balanced.”

Fuck it! These people don’t wan’t fair - these people don’t want balanced. It burns their crotch to know that other channels dispassionately announce everything while keeping as much of their political polarities to themselves. Meanwhile, idiots like Bill and Hannity continue bitching about how these media outlets are biased, while clearly ranting on and on about idealisms alluding to a media that only gives the viewers one, strong side of the story, coupled with a watered down version of the other. Yes, very polarised; very politically partisan -- to the right -- and very balanced in the sense that the other side of the same story is so weak that one could consider it non-existent. Fox is hence, Faux; for it isn’t interested in reporting when it wastes my time with its politically polarised opinions, while further boiling my blood by declaring itself the sole source of actual news, when it can’t dispassionately report to save its own dignity.

“Get this shameless fuckin’ sham off my television! Oh… -there’s- the remote!” - Closure.

Indeed, there’s a number of reasons as to why a person in my position can suffer from high blood pressure; what with all the rage that Faux brings out of me. Therefore, I am going to be doing myself a favour, by going on a sabbatical from Faux News; it’s just better for both my physiological and mental health.

Until next time, stay cool, fuckers.


Saturday, June 17, 2006

We've become so soft that our forefathers wouldn't even have us as their pets: Warrior

Yo, fuckers. What’s up? Surprised by the opening? C’mon, you guys can be a tad bit flexible; don’t let your past-conceptions cloud your actual perceptiveness… still no luck, eh? I am serious, I do care! No, really, I am capable of having concern in the affairs of my fellow humans. After all, I invest painstaking efforts into berating humankind’s filthy bigotry-ridden disdain with which it smothers itself day-in - day-out, and then wonders why the general state of affairs is downhill. Actually, my inexcusable insolence probably exacerbates the same decline in the bigger picture, even if only by a small margin; however, I think adding my nudges to that greater negative might finally help the slow-witted common-folk, identify the great anomaly - the greater wrong in this picture that they perceive and often dismiss as a philosophical puzzle.

What the fuck am I going on about? Well, I was reading the Warrior, Jim Hellwig’s blog. Well, technically, he no longer goes by that name, so let’s just refer to him as Warrior. This is, by the way, the same man who wielded the mystic Ultimate Warrior gimmick in the WWF during the late eighties and early nineties. “Oh, not another rant about wrestling,” some of you must be exclaiming just about now. No, this has little to do with wrestling, especially if you were truly educated enough to know that Warrior’s a staunchly classic conservative, with some very powerful political contentions; therefore, Storm has something meaningful to build-up on.
Mr. Warrior had some strong words about the illegal immigration crisis; then again, anything immigration-related is like a psychological laxative for a far-right conservative - they just start blowing all sorts of tar from every single cavity in their body. “Got a constipated far-right nationalist on your hands? Discuss immigration, and they won’t stop going for days to come… that extremist neo-con will be soiling his-or-herself left, right, and centre,” I say. Ugly imagery aside, I got to reading Warrior’s ideas on how humans complain about the impractical side of getting things done, and added a comparison to his tirade, by pegging present-day America against a world from three-hundred-years-ago. The former professional wrestler-turned-political spokesperson/nutcase, expressed a deep-rooted belief that most of the traditional Americans from over three-centuries-ago, wouldn’t even want to have the modern-day American whiner for a pet.

“I’ll let you all have a moment to enjoy a good laugh; I know I did, so it would only be fair of me to let you have your go.” - My allowance to you greedy fucks.

Ahaha… now, while I can agree somewhat with Mr. Warrior’s opinion, I would also have to show the man “who can, who must, who will,” that the world from three-hundred-years-ago, was contrastingly less populated than the world that we have now and on the same scale, much less complex. Mr. Warrior should also factor in the fact that economies weren’t nearly as fuckin’ inflated, and populations weren’t nearly as burgeoning as they are in present day. In my honest opinion, a hick from three-hundred-years-ago, being magically transported into the present, would most likely have other shocking realisations on their mind as opposed to determining whether the modern American is worthy of being their pet. As a matter of fact, I can bet that a typical hick from three-centuries-ago would most likely perish from a cerebral aneurysm sparked by having to comprehend the drastically contrasting population density.

“I mean seriously, visualise the notion for yourselves; you’re walking past some ranch, inside some small town with a population in the mere hundreds. Suddenly, through some cryptic means, time jumps three-hundred-years into the future, and you find yourself standing in the middle of some city district, with more people within your square kilometre range than what you had expected from the entire region, back in your days. Fuck! So! Many! People! Lord! Have! Merc………….ey!” - My simulation of Warrior’s theory, as the subject’s cranium pops open like an enormously ripe and disgustingly ugly pimple.
A SouthPark'd version of what would go down:
(Courtesy of the South Park Studio.)

As we can see, our virtual test subject didn’t do too well. Mr. Warrior should know better than to compare the depth and extent of problems to their exponentially greater contemporaries. I mean, sure, philosophies and mindsets might generally remain the same; but numbers and expansion are not fixed. I do have to give him some credit, however, because he did propose some interesting ideas. Unfortunately, the truly intriguing concept was one that even he declared impossible, and was probably entertaining as a mockery - a purely sarcastic jest. Sad really, how I can only agree with classically nutty conservatives when they’re being sarcastic. “What did Mr. Warrior propose, Mr. Storm?” asks the dimwit sitting in the corner, eager to glean my wisdom. Well, Mr. Warrior proposed that if Mexico is as bad as it presently is, and they really want Americanisation so badly, then perhaps America should actually, and peacefully, takeover Mexico, and declare it a member of the United States. Hey, I couldn’t argue with the logic per se; want American - make it American! I know I wouldn’t have hated Afghanistan, or Iraq, had they been turned into remotely American countries; Bush just went in there made Islamic theocracies out of each of ‘em, which automatically seals the fate of humanity in both regions; need I regress to the rant on Abdul Rahman, again? Alas, the Warrior was just yankin’ our chain; he’s just content with the idea of booting out some twelve-million illegal-immigrants, and of course, in the name of America.

Therefore, I was treated to an hour of comprehending the asinine, coupled with some much-needed laughs. I have to admit, underneath some of that shrew scathe that has become Warrior’s trademark, I can find a bit of humour, and even the occasional grain of sense. To put it simply, the guy’s got some interesting compositions, even though I don’t agree with them. However, I have to say that in this case, he really simplified the concept of comparing eras; there is not a fuckin’ aorta of sense in comparing the economics and physically enormous logistics of today’s issues, with that of the similar, but far more contained issues from the older eras. Right, and before you get any ideas, let me request that you make no comparisons to the black plague; it was certainly a huge catastrophe, but it wasn’t overcome. Over and above all, every fact does have its exceptions; I am not saying that every single one of the past issues wasn’t empirically as cumbersome as the issues of today. However, when you’re dealing with populations of people, there is no chance in hell that the present would pale on contrast to the past - I repeat, “Nearly seven-billion people!” Fathom that figure for a moment, Mr. Warrior; all else is cool!

“I pity the fool from three-hundred-years-ago, who’d have to fathom the chaos that is today! He wouldn’t have one of us for his pet? Hah! Our own pets wouldn’t have this naïve, and relatively conceited shmuck as their amusement.” - Closure.
Until next time, fuckers; stay cool, and don’t even joke about picturing historical bystanders making surprise appearances in the overwhelmingly chaotic present. Sure, they may've been tough country-folk, but they just won’t be able to handle the neo-burdens of urban-life - the implication swings both ways.


Link to Warrior’s pearls of insanity, with trace amounts of wisdom:

Friday, June 16, 2006 of life? Go suck on the ass of a rotting corpse!

Alrighty, I am back, fuckers! And oh, fuckin’, hell! I am so riled-up about something that’s been eating away at me for a fuckin’ eternity. Today’s sporadic rant addresses this ancient debate about life, and the respect that children are expected to show their parents, for bringing them into this world. Oh yes, this very world! Y’know, this fuckin’ mishmash of idealistic garbage, tainted by political and religious tarnish that further diminishes any charm of potential livelihood.

It all began when a kid decided to make casual conjecture about how he felt his mom was being stupid about something; is this wrong? I don’t fuckin’ know; to have any kind of opinion on the matter, I would have to know his mother, and have a firsthand account of the event that invoked such rhetoric. Now, being a realist, I ain’t gonna’ play god and assume everything on this matter. It’s not my place to determine whether this boy was right, or whether this boy was wrong.

Of course, I kept quite until this little ass-munch -- known for rearing his twisted right-wing head at every nook and corner -- decided to step in and state that this kid complaining about his mother, "had better be kidding." It should be known that this shmuck, knew as much about the kid who passed some mild, and very casual criticism about his own mother, as I did - he knew nothing. However, being the little annoying shmuck that he is, he had a lot to say about matters that he didn’t know much about. Idiocy lives on, ladies and gents! It beats with the heart of the fuckin’ devil himself, that is, if there’s even any such thing. To be honest; I think all the religious allusions to Satan were merely metaphors referring to the innate asininity that vicariously exists within the mindsets of individuals such as our aforementioned shmuck, but I realise that I'm digressing here.

Note: Now, before I proceed, I would like to simplify matters by giving the two kids their respective codenames, because otherwise, this rant will get confusing. Therefore, I dub the adolescent who criticised his mother, Momma’s Boy! As for the kid who felt, that he had to react like a religious fanatic to Momma Boy’s conjecture, I’ll call him the Fanatic Shmuck, and just “Shmuck” for short.

I stepped into this fray, and by this point, Momma’s Boy was long-gone. I called out Shmuck for his sleazy comment. Yes, in my opinion, it was sleazy because it wasn’t his place to determine the rights and wrongs of such a matter, especially under his ill-informed state. Parents can be good; but they’re not superior beings, incapable of any wrongs. These are human beings, which mean that some of them can be just as prone to committing certain wrongs as any other imbalanced human. I wasn’t going one way or the other; I was merely explaining that just because one fuckin’ twit has a great mother, doesn’t meant that his perception of a mother becomes mandatory for those little toddlers who’re abused and abandoned in third-world nation’s orphanages because their mothers couldn’t stop prostituting themselves. Point being that not all parents are the same; some are great, while some can be terrible.

“I would’ve expected the shmuck to understand where I was coming from! Damn! Was I setting myself up for a fuckin’ disappointment! I am more ashamed of myself to expect a right-wing nut job to utilise moderate sense as opposed to succumbing to his linear point-of-view! Stupid fuck.” - Immediate rhetoric.

Therefore, I sought some kind of compromising reaction, but instead, I got the following comment smeared into my face; “your a retrd if you bitchin’ those that brought yo ass into this world!” Yes, and I’d be damned if I was gonna’ correct the grammar in that line, especially after what this little cock-munching ala shmuck threw in my face. Talkin’ down to me, when I’ve come to terms with that very rhetoric eons ago. It’s one thing to hear something that’s not cliché; but it’s another to hear it from someone who was still incontinently shitting through his diapers during Nirvana’s first ever world tour.

“Stupid shit thought he could get away with it! So I chose to flack his little esoteric reality with some bitter facts!” - Resolve.

Prompted by my anger, and the extreme asinine nature of his comment; I dove in headfirst with some bitter commentary. I started by comparing his mindset to that of a conservative middle-eastern elitists. Yes, to those of you that don’t know; in the middle-east, children are basically treated like biological assets used for cheap, and very degrading courtships that serve as the backdrop for financial and social progress. That is, parents basically determine who gets to fuck you, and have children with you, so they can have more social connections, reputation, and money even. Of course, their parents hand down the same punishment to them; it’s a curse that’s been perpetuated from generation-to-generation. Thus, the same subdued mindset ultimately rears its ugly head when those younglings that are abused into wedlock, finally have children of their own: the new generation undergoes the same punishment. This is just disgusting; however, what’s more disgusting is the underlying pathology that promotes this entire chain of insanities; that parenthood equates to a sick form of pimp-like ownership over the children’s lives until they’re officially married off. Though it should be noted that being typically sexist cultures, the men do get greater leeway over their female counterparts.

“In the A-typically middle-eastern conservative-culture… Children are fuckin’ sexual organs for sale! Their individual will matters not, because according to the parents, it’s some kind of fuckin’ blessing that they were forced to knock each other up, and then bring these children into the world, by no will or volition of their own! Therefore, the children should be grateful for having a life that isn’t really a life at all… especially considering that they’re being set up for tactical rape, which is legitimised by the will of the parents, which is further legitimised by this conservative religious culture that paints anything with parental status as something pious and angelic - a completely asinine thesis! I have personal accounts of cases where bitchy mothers have beaten their daughters into marrying chauvinistic bastards that further beat them; force them to bear children, and then commit adultery with other, younger women! Yeah! Don’t expect me to respect the bitch that perpetuates such a sick ideal! Of course, all this under the religiously motivated emotional blackmail that the same sell out parents did their children a great favour by giving them birth, and looking after them! The conception is your fuckin’ action, and the child is your fuckin’ responsibility! GROW THE FUCK UP!” - A bit of general-knowledge.

Unfortunately, this point didn’t sink in very nicely with the shmuck, who was now even more insulted over the fact that I compared him to middle-eastern conservatives, what a moron! I wasn’t insulting his mother, was I? Perhaps in his mind, I was. This is what happens when you’re dealing with a fanatic mindset; they cannot flex outside of their thinking paradigm. Just because the shmucks parents decided to take good care of him, he believes that everyone else probably had the exact same experience with their own parents, with only mild differences at best. Once again, I presented him with the fact that parents are actually individual beings with their own mindsets; but once again, it went over his head as he responded with comments about how life is some kinda’ favour.

“First off! Birth isn’t some favour! It’s something done without your volition and will! This world isn’t some pretty paradigm! I am not saying that one should condemn life; but for parents to use this excuse to emotionally blackmail their children, is fuckin’ sick.” - Closure.

Life isn’t some favour; it’s a chance, and it’s all fine and dandy if you’re allowed to live this life. Unfortunately, I know of many glaring examples where youngsters are left dogmatised by the traumas of having to conform at the gunpoint guilt of the emotional blackmail from their parents. The same parents who like to think that bringing up their children is a fuckin’ favour as opposed to something that’s their responsibility. I even know of examples where such parents have disowned their children for trying to live their own lives, especially when that life-approach/style goes against what the given parents consider the ideal mould.

Therefore, can we stop being a bunch of cocksuckers about this? Some of us are fortunate enough to have great parents; some of us aren’t; some of us have moderate models in between. It’s all good! Should it be a taboo to point out an obvious wrong in someone, simply because one carries the title of “mother” or “father”? No! And that is fuckin’ retarded! Parenthood isn’t a license to get away with anything; it’s a responsibility, which when properly taken, results in good respect and admiration. This by no means implies that you’re automatically free to commit follies and wrongs, and not have your children point them out to you! I know some of the readers on a personal level, and I know that they’re devout parents; so I hope I haven’t offended any of them with this rant. All I am saying is that generalising and stereotyping parenthood, and the parental mindset is one of the biggest follies plaguing the present-day paradigm. Furthermore, life isn’t life until the given children/offspring is given the opportunity to live that life for his/her own self, rather than being used as flesh for sale on the human market. I’ve had the honour of knowing parents, who’ve actually brought up their children as responsible adults, without imposing guilt on them, parents who’ve actually given their children life, as opposed to giving them birth, and then blackmailing them into accepting that one moment as life!

“Bringing a child into this world, and letting the child live in this world while being responsible for bringing that child, are two very different concepts! And it’s about time that the conservative-fascists grow the fuck up, and realise this dichotomy! They can take this little tirade, and stick it in their holier-than-thou, gift-of-life pipe, and smoke it!” - Closure.

Once again, I'd like all the good parents -- especially those that I know somewhat -- to accept this rant as one that isn't being targetted against all parents; that is just wrong. I know that some of you are excellent models; you have my highest respect in that regard! This is not against parents; this is just to prove a point that parents are also members of the human dynamic, and that certain human beings aren't model humanists - that, is, all.

Until next time… stay cool, and live out your own lives, you crazy fucks!


Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Another Day, Another Apologist!

“I’m trying to relax, believe it or not! I am trying to call it a fuckin’ day, and I had to come across the manifesto, and then I had to come across the critique of the given manifesto! Why, oh why the fuck do I get myself into these situations? I am a pathological case of philosophical self-destruction; I am compulsively gauged towards meshing my digestive enzymes and what remains of my functioning brain-chowder, until I am left with one puddle of bad-tasting soup. I need a fuckin’ lobotomy!” - Opening statement, and signs of warning.

So yeah, I would recommend that you read the following to catch-up on the manifesto:

I would also recommend that some of you graze through the following article, which is a critique of the manifesto by an Islamic-scholarly-type-person, named Hamid Dabashi (Islamic Scholary - Oxymoron, I know.):

However, I shall lay strong emphasise on grazing, because this very literary piece could have you confused and tearing your hair over a matter that is actually quite trivial. This of course, is nothing but a by-product of the author’s own tactics to obfuscate a matter for the sake of his own self-esteem, which stems from the denigration of his group identity. After all, most of the non-individualistic individuals practically treat their group identity as their own; as a matter of fact, technically, there is no such thing as a non-individual. You have individuals who actually end up with their own unique identity; and you often have the individuals who take on a group identity, but treat it as their own; this is why most individuals with a group identity often exude denial when the presence of their unique individual is challenged. Anyhow, I’d be digressing with my theories; let’s get on with the matter then, because my stomach’s in more knots than those one would find listed inside an ace boy scout’s hand book.

Now, I am going to try to avoid sprinkling too many random words over this matter, because I do not want to reciprocate the same pretentious drama that the author--of the aforementioned, and linked article--Mr. Hamid Dabashi has done. People bitch about me getting too dodgy with semantic trickery; I’ve had a taste of this medication, and gleaned much displeasure from it - fuck, there I go again. You see, under that plethora of words in the article that is aptly titled, “Islam and globalisation” our author is actually just beating the same old dead horse. This is, in fact, another one of them reasonable Moslems--a koranik, by my standards--who’s trying to take a zealous counter-offensive through a more civil and journalistic medium. Good for him! I can respect an individual for offering good intellectual rebuttal; however, these days, we have too many people who prance about under the guise of intellectual critics, while evading the essence of an argument by disputing surface semantics. When you can’t defeat an actual point; you then criticise and denigrate any flaws you might find in its cosmetic layout; anything to get the heat off from the irrefutable bone of contention. Going into such rebuttals can be a very tacky process, for just exposure to the first quartet of such literary debacles, effectively has one searching for an actual critique of the essence, and just enduring endless drivels about specifics and cosmetic mechanics, that really don’t say much about the essence to begin with.

It’s kind of like contiguous conditioning; I’ll say that another person’s point is invalid, but instead of actually addressing the spirit of their point, I’ll try to distract by just addressing a poor use of mechanics. I’ll dedicate about a thousand-plus words to that poor use of mechanics, and before you know it, the essential critique of the essence of my target, will be long forgotten. A reader will read something about me disapproving of something, and then attacking only the semantic side of the criticism, leaving the conclusion on that note. Yes, yes, I am digressing, again; I think Mr. Dabashi pretty much did the same thing, in his critique of the infamous/famous manifesto. He attacked it because it generally addressed the threat that free speech suffers at the hands of extremists, and Mr. Dabashi countered the contention by arguing against the western views of ‘Islam’. So in reality, he didn’t really succeed in disqualifying the threat that all the free speech advocates were wallowing over; he only argued that it should not be considered part of the Islam that he believes in--the same old 'perverted ideology' argument.

He thinks that 'Islamism', as a term, is getting demonised by these European closet-fascists, who’re actually using 'freedom of expression' as a justification, while secretly achieving this agenda. Now, while I don’t have problems with individuals coming up with their conspiracy theories and observations, I do have certain issues with people just charging up an argument against one essence, but completely evading it for the bulk of their contention; it’s like watching a movie for the sake of a certain premise and element within, only to find that premise taking up to five-percent of the given movie’s time and resources.

Dabashi argues that how these talentless individuals can demand shelter from Islamic Totalitarianism; I can personally see the flaw in the terminology, myself. The man argues that very point as well; where’s the totalitarianism, when the only true theocracy is Iran? So okay, dude, it isn’t a politically accurate way of putting things; you bring up references of Pakistan as a US agent - do you bring up the fact that over two-thirds of its population actually celebrated 9/11? Mr. Dabashi, didn’t even bother to consider how impotent the Pakistan government is in dealing with the finer issues, and how most apostates and secularists have to lead very insecure and closeted lives, because not only are they publicly persecuted, but are also persecuted under legal-pretences because of Islamic law. So no matter how you slice it; American ally or not - Pansistan is an Islamic theocracy. I can fully acknowledge Mr. Dabashi’s personal views; he doesn’t appear to be subscribing to a sharia-oriented view, and seems to be a quasi-critical thinker. So then, why scathe the few who demand universal freedom of expression? It’s not like Dabashi’s faith is being robbed from his fragile mind, which has no trouble coming up with bulks of literary boomerangs, which he proficiently uses to distract us from the real contention made by most of these proponents of free speech.

Call it whatever you wanna’ call it; totalitarianism wasn’t being used as a very specific and close-ended term, here; it wasn‘t a literal term. This is philosophical totalitarianism, or a metaphorical totalitarianism, if your will; this is a plea against a bullying attitude, and the style of reaction as opposed to the reaction itself. They’re condemning the fact that million-dollar bounties are being put on their heads for expressing views; they’re not condemning people like Dabashi for making his contentions and expressing his own distaste; if that were the case, then Dabashi himself would be the target of condemnation, and clearly, such is not the case. I am quite certain that much like myself, these proponents of free speech actually welcome subtle conservatives like Dabashi to openly engage in civil critique through his own one-track opinions. I also believe that Dabashi isn’t eclipsed from this reality; he gets it, but he’s trying to get his closure through intentionally avoiding that reality so he can defend his wounded group-pride.

Therefore, I slouch over from reading this highway-long thesis, and try to see the finer points that’ve been spread too thinly over an unnecessarily hefty column; dispassionate and riddled with dull verbiage - it’s only energy emanating from the evident displeasure against the heathen westerners who’re looking to advocate free speech for all. Meaning that the only non-boring and somewhat passionate parts of this entire snoozing literature, was Dabashi’s constantly subtle condemnation of Salman Rushdie, which of course, he tries to hide so carefully under the guise of a very objective critique. Sorry, dude, not even a million-word jabbering could change the fact that you were basically whining about the context in which these proponents of free speech refer to Islamism; and of course, the term totalitarianism being used in a relatively metaphorical sense. Yes sir, in the real world, we actually use a lot of metaphors to escape the routine of mundane expressions. Dabashi knew full well that by totalitarianism, Rushie and co. were addressing the potent issue of religious fascists putting out bounties; destitute and narrow-minded masses going all ape-shit over the issue of their religious dignity getting challenged in mere and free-opinion.

Dabashi even admits that they’re free to do what they desire; his only, true rhetoric addresses the denigration of the term “Islamic” and utility of the term “Islamic Totalitarianism.” So okay, let’s call it, hmm, “Ugly Fanatic Baboonism”, I think that’s a suited term; does Mr. Dabashi care to guess how many of his estimated one-and-a-half billion Moslems fall under that umbrella? Quite a few! If people coining “Islamism” in bad light, hurts him so badly, then why don’t he and his so-called cronies of true enlightenment, actually reform the Moslem world, which they connotatively pass off as flexible and adaptable. I mean, if the problem’s really in Iran, only, then perhaps Mr. Dabashi can explain why the masses in Afghanistan and Pakistan still celebrate western suffering; still believe that pagans and apostates are not worthy of life. If he believes that the western media is intentionally focussing on the bad apples, while not focussing on the majority of the moderates, and their perception and implementation of Islam, then I’d like him to dedicate a few words to explaining why moderate clerics in Afghanistan demanded Abdul Rahman’s death; I would like him to explain why horse-shit like the sharia; a law that commands death of apostates, and stoning of adulterating women--whether via forced rape, or otherwise--continues to exist in most of these moderate domains. I don’t care what the numbers are for the moderates, because even if they’re a majority, they’re too fuckin’ wimpy and spineless to implement actual change. Therefore, allow me to introduce this whole ordeal to the Dark Storm’s Three-Tier Path To Nullifying this chatter!

“Sorry, chump! Lotsa’ big words, but wasted on a very linear point! Most of the Islamists, still fit the same officious profile that's implied by the free speech advocates; a majority of the moderates are nothing more than extremists with an apologist tone. Most of them assign the Sharia a higher priority over their holy book, because the stars be fucked that they’d have to actually work out adjusting the abstract nature of their holy-book into a modern and changing world! Why do this, when they can rely on one preset, preordained dogma of misery!? The book is only called out when your apologist buddies need to distract critics from the clear-cut ills and inhumanities of the Sharia; focussing on the pretty, generic message of peace and tolerance! But when a contradiction arises, the book is wrapped up and stowed away, and the Sharia is back to work, torturing apostates; oppressing minorities, and turning women into incubating drones, among many other follies. Sorry pal, you yourself stated that the west focuses on the demonised form of what Islam has become over the last two-hundred-years; well tough luck! Most of the Islamic omelette falls under that machination! Deal with this reality; they‘re the majority, therefore, they get to define the concept. The day you and likeminded thinkers become the majority of the Islamic race, then you might have a case against people referring to Islamism as something officious; because at the moment, that is exactly what it is, thanks to a majority of its self-defining populace; yourself excluded.” - First contention of the Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying all this chatter!
“Oh, and worry not about the references to the similarity this whole issue bears to the initial demonisation of the Jews at the apex of the pre-World War II drama that set the tone for the Jewish holocaust. While the specifics and facts cannot be disputed; this is so not the same, and a tactic that I’ve often seen utilised by apologists. Only difference; it doesn’t seem to be happening as we speak; Islamic-fascists--yes, I said it--are having a ball with their domineering dogmas, governing and terrorising any mavericks and individualistic bodies that fall under the remote vicinity of their devil-wings! Seriously, reciting a tired of historical fact and trying to draw matches between the then and the now, is really just an evasive ploy - not something to be expected from an argument that is trying to sincerely dispel a modern-conception rather than distract.” - Second contention of Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying this chatter!
“I won’t even argue against the fact that there aren’t neo-con bodies in the western paradigm, with their own esoteric agendas, who’re actually relying on the plot to subtly demonise an entire race in order to justify their own racial and religious bigotry. It is but natural, every force -- even when it comes to complex human schools of thought and nature -- usually has an equal and opposite force that is almost a mirror compliment. You have the Islamic Fascists, followed by their bloodhounds - the fanatics; on the other side of the board, you have the western Neo-Cons and their own bloodhounds! The rest of you lot are just politically impotent critical thinkers, caught up in the gravitational rifts that have been created by these two spheres of psychotic dogmas. Do I associate Rushdie and the free-speech advocates as part of the Neo Con movement? No, not entirely. I consider them as much a part of that Neo-Con machine, as I consider you, Dabashi - a part of the Neo-Islamist machine; now, you go and figure the rest; I‘ve offered a simple equation! Of course, this doesn’t mean that neither party is being used by their respective machines - oh hell no! Just like most Neo-Cons will use -- and must already be using -- these free speech advocates as launch pads for their own agendas; similarly, most Neo-Islamists/Islamic Neo-Cons/Extermists/Ugly Aggressive Baboonists, will mostly likely use your plethora of dodgy words and semantic disputes-for-distraction, as launch pad for their own apologist agenda, which is ultimately destined to progress into justification of some of the most heinous acts being committed under the glory of a homogenised populace, and their blind-faith! Comparing Rushdie to the malicious Iranian theocrats only serves as further evasion from the point, and even reflects your personal passion against Rushdie, bleeding into, and destroying your thesis. One‘s a general proponent of a safe ideology, whose contentions might be used by other malicious bodies for their own propaganda; the Iranian president‘s an actual religious fascist who‘d easily and willingly bathe in the blood of a thousand humans, for the sake of his officious ideology, and not lose even a second of sleep over the atrocious implication! You, sir, have drawn an awful parallel, and you‘ve also defeated that pseudo-objectivity that you had to diligently construed as your tone during that article. Pathetic.” - Third contention in Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying this chatter!

You see, fuckers, I recently found a Neo Con shooting off a similar, but pro-republican opinion, on Moxie’s blog. I made a very brief response to his rhetoric regarding the loss of objectivity. Now, here’s the deal, folks, I am tired of people dragging the concept of objectivity through the mud. Objectivity, in the manner that it is fakes by these religious and ideological apologists, is far from any form of objectivity when it intentionally ascribes to an anthropic bias--it’s defeated by the fact that the abusing party intentionally and systematically restricts the objectivity in a given matter to serve their own goal and agenda. Even if additional objectivity might disprove their point. Then again, this would be the core issue here: people don’t want objectivity - they just wanna’ have it their way, and then not feel selfish or questioned about getting it, by deceiving themselves into believing that it was all empirically valid as a strategy.

I am sickened by this approach; everyone uses it, and I don’t have anything against people being selfish; I have problems with people being selfish while touting a holier than thou stance of objectivity, which is clearly a sham. Same goes for Hamid Dabashi’s critique; he aims to attack the free speech advocates who signed the manifesto -- Rushdie included -- but since he couldn’t really disprove the fact that Islamic fanaticism is actually something that many of the third world Moslems either practice, or sympathise with, and that actual bounties are being handed out and availed by many, in the name of the same religion. Dabashi, instead, focussed on just creating a glorified semantic debate out of the advocates utility of the term “Islamic Totalitarianism”.

So it isn’t technically totalitarianism; but the general group psychology is tainted with this arm-twisting mentality, and a sizeable and dominantly vocal group are either practising it, or at least in sympathy with this agenda. So let's just accept this reality and move on with addressing the concerns raised rather than the same old smoke and mirrors routine of deflection! When the masses wanna’ create chaos, they’re able to, and that’s about all that one can say on the matter; it really can be the majority’s authority, at times.

The essence of what the free speech advocates had set out to imply, remains as valid as ever, if not further validated, despite Dabashi’s semantic critique, which was simply evading the point. Dabashi was just a hair short of outright personal attacks on the signers, which further validates his own anthropic bias in the matter. He had neglected most of the wrongs; reserved the least amount of his bulky literature to dedicate to a scientific critique of the Islamic theocratic atmosphere in the East, or the actual threat that Islamic fanaticism holds to western freedoms. He was being absolutely one-sided and opinionated while packaging his contention in an objective veneer about as thick or convincing as a paper mache baseball bat. That is the bane of post-modern scholarly wisdom and tactics: using shoddy objectivity for self-service, and trying to pass it off as pure objectivity.

“Mr. Dabashi, good sir; lose the holier than thou tone, please. It just makes an all-round critique sound even more like a dull, yet well-written attempt at an archetypical Islamic apologist’s contention. Disputing terms will not change all those ‘fatwas’ and reactionary nerves that are so prominently out there; people in the cleanest and best of mosques outright fall short of damning the western paradigm, and those that don’t necessarily agree with the Islamic world on everything.

"You talk about people having that freedom, and vice versa. You talk about the certain Shiites being flexible. Well, then let us see you make a majority out of these people; and furthermore, let us see these people take actual initiative rather than their extremist counterparts showing their ugly hate-ridden mug shots in the media. 

"You have bigger things to worry about aside from Rushdie and his evil free speech advocates; hell, you even have bigger issues aside from the esoteric Neo Cons. You have a sizeable number of your own Islamic populace, being homogenised under a violent theological regiment, spearheaded by psychotic dogma-mongers. Deal with those bastards, because they‘re at the forefront of inciting all the movements against your so-called faith; you wanna get all eloquent about it? Deal with the source: Deal with those that are directly corrupting your faith! Deal with those forces that have changed Islam over the last two-hundred-years, rather than complain about a bunch of people who now feel terrorised by the Islam that they‘ve witnessed across their own respective life-spans! 

"So get over this sham of a critique; you‘re not of lacking calibre to sound like an apologist, because despite trying it here, you managed to fall short of being an apologist, which is a good thing. We are now at a point in time where masses of people are beginning to define the visage of faiths. You can‘t have it both ways; differentiate yourself from the rest of the Islamic morass, and then reform rather than complain about how the rest of the world feels about that group of one-and-a-half-billion, because of how a majority of its intolerant populace, chooses to project itself. ” - Part I of Closure

“And please, let’s refrain for this fucking fruit cocktail of distracting vocabulary in a matter where the words only serve to further obfuscate us from the very simple bone of contention: Most of us are frikin’ threatened by this reactionary nature! People actually live under such threat and worry for their well being; call it totalitarianism, or baboonism. Just lose the barrage of fancy words to pretentiously decorate your evasion from confronting the actual, and irrefutable point: that fanaticism is a strong and on-going threat! It needs to be dealt with; the rest of us don’t deserve to have our lives fucked into a black, painful oblivion for having mere opinions! I can respect your progressive views; but by pulling off this quasi-apologist critique, you are painfully shifting the light from a blatant threat!” - Part 2 of Closure

Maaaaaaaan! Why the fuck do I get into this shit? Could someone remind me, again? Fuckity!

Yeah, I’ve just performed a psychic lobotomy on myself; I feel high; I feel stupefied; I feel like half my brain-matter just vaporised from the confines of my bulky skull. Yes! All is finally well!

Stay cool, fuckers.