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

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Smacking the Apologists, Part - Unknown (lost count).

It just so happens that my compulsive nature for annoying, and quite honestly, unproductive debates, once again has me churning my cranium. I had quite a hefty rant after I read a certain link, which I shall post and explain in the following paragraph. My follow-up was dirty, but it was meaningful to me, just like most of my profanity infused rants on this blog, so I'll post that thick, maxim-of-doom, on this blog, because it is mine! ALL MINE! BAHAHAHAHA!

The link, which comes from a website known as "Civilisation vs. The Middle East (Ages, heeh!)"; the article linking users to a clip of Wafa Sultan - an outspoken critic of present misrepresentation of religion, and politicised oppression by fundamentalist Islam. Apparently, comparing this woman to Martin Luther King got so-called "moderate-Moslems" into a typically rabid mood, which they always deny, decrying the woman as--amongst many other ridiculing innuendos--a secularist, who by virtue of her secular stance, is nothing more than a minion who worships the white-man as her god. So, being a fellow secularist, I had to clarify that I have no such deity, and it's certainly not a white man! And what exactly does this imply about the god of secularist Moslems? It’s funny how easily this massive tribe of spiritual-slaves can revel in the “martyr complex”, now developing quite a racist sub-complex; anything to perpetuate self-pity and righteousness; and oddly enough, they can be pretty bigoted themselves.

Anyway, without further wait... I give to you (with great pity for most of you, because even I suffered with this rant, somewhat)... My response to the comments from the above-posted link.

Kade's tirade (addressed mainly, to the so-called moderates)...

Most of this banter is nothing more than evasive bullshit: Moslem-apologists picking at straws - Staunch Neo-Cons decrying one dogma in the name of another. Of course, right in the centre, there have been some very powerful sentiments, which not even a poetic sociologist could outclass (The Truth; Free Iran; Habib; Waheed - That took guts, dude; Sufu). I would've included Ibn Adam, if he hadn't gone out of his way to use selective memory to glorify his belief, while completely rejecting the barbaric ethos that has originated from the said belief; but at least he’s not an entirely self-serving sheep like Fatima, who’s basically the human equivalent of an ugly broken record from the early 50s.

It’s irrelevant, this entire apologist banter about how true believers would never resort to such barbaric trends; it’s irrelevant if in some sense of the critical-term, “Islam is being confused with Moslems.” So, fucking, what? It doesn’t change that fact that hordes of barbaric posses rally every time some civil notion challenges the fundamentals of their religious culture; apostate getting away with a free life; journalist/author/spokesperson/individual getting away with blasphemy through free speech. It doesn’t matter how you see the religion, until and unless you chose to take this religion, differentiate it from the spittle-mire that is spewed by fundamentalists, and then combat them with intellectual debate, which you’ll obviously fail at because there is no intellectual debates with savage minions who kill at the sound of an opinion of intellectual dissent.

Sorry, but you ought to stop getting defensive about this whole topic, because if you’re so naïve to believe that this isn’t your religion, then you could, at the very least, obscure your insecurities with a bit of rational logic, and not defend this extremist ideology, when you clearly believe that it doesn’t represent your faith. Seriously, this is an attack against all those crazy theocratic regimes and massive-slew of brain-washed, destitute masses from the developing world, who clearly--according to your innuendos--follow a perverted ideology as opposed to the supposedly “true message” that only you moderates follow; you wanna’ believe that, then feel free to, buddy… whatever makes your world go round! That’s all what we really want; for most to believe in whatever they wish to believe in, albeit, within such civic bounds as to not physically tread on, and or violate the sanctity of anyone else who deviates. Unfortunately, the popular conception of this Islamic religion promotes such sick, oppressive dogmas, where religion is the ultimate authority, and sanctions every bit of the state to do its dirty-biddings; if you “enlightened moderates” like to believe that this isn’t your real faith, then distance yourselves from this popular concept, and stop getting defensive like petulant children, every time someone attacks this perversion, because, kiddos, that is exactly the bear-trap that causes you to self-defeat your own claims and end up associating with the extremists; recall my last rant about how moderates still consider themselves part of the same twisted “brotherhood”. Stop bitching and defending, for once, and try fighting Sharia, go on, I dare you!

“I mean, to me, the concept is really quite simple! If someone likes to munch on dicks! And I dislike the idea of munching dicks, then how in the fuck can the dick-muncher, and the anti-dick-muncher, be considered a brotherhood? Fuck no! It doesn’t work! They’re quite the fucking opposite!” - My Resolution.

Such pitifully confused “moderates” are nothing more than self-defeating apologists, who despite boisterous claims, always end up resorting to evasive tactics when confronted with the ugly side of their cultural dogma. I can just scope the psyche of the typical apologist, and here’s a common mantra among the musings of such a rotting mind, when confronted with the barbaric nature of its creed: “Oh, fudge! They’re right! This religion has caused a lot of bloodshed! Yet I can’t help but defend it somewhat, because I was brought up with a spiritual tunnel-vision! And I can’t be an honest putz and condemn this, because that would take galls, which I really don’t have! So I’ll either distance myself from this shit, or… Oh! Oh! Oh! Or better yet, I’ll bring up talks about other bloodshed that had nothing to do with my faith! THAT’LL KEEP ‘EM DISTRACTED!” And then begins the broken-record references that we’ve all heard, and repeatedly debunked a thousand-times-over.

Thus, the initiation of all the twisted references to the crusades, the great war, the world war, the holocausts--which most Islamic radicals reject--and whatnot else. This approach can be criticised, shot-down, and demolished into oblivion through a variety of methods, but nothing quite matches the clause of irrelevance and the objection of detraction: Nothing like defeating a point by completely invalidating its bearings in a present-day context, or proving it to be nothing more than an evasive tactic. So yes, first off; WHO THE FUCK CARES? So, something nasty happened a few decades ago; is any sane majority of the civilised world justifying that heinous chapter? Oh, fucking hell with puss-smelling trout, NO! So, a religious brigade waged bloody wars in the name of moral-superiority and divine prosperity, HUNDREDS-OF-YEARS-AGO! Does anyone in the civil world condone this? Hardly! Fuck, the other day, Kellie Copeland was raving incoherently like the televangelist doll that she is, and even she sounded like a happy hippie as she condemned the crusades as very evil, and in her words, “horribly mean!” (AW! Dumb girl!) There, a Jesus lover and bible thumper - daughter of Kenneth Copeland, one of the most renowned televangelists and Christian apologists; dubbing the same act atrocious. Over and above all; so what if this happened? No one is contesting its existence, or justifying the fact then why do these people insist on bringing it up, everytime their religion's integrity is questioned? We all agree that we've had some bad chapters in history, but yet these shmucks use these examples as excuses every time the civil-fortitude of their religion is questioned? Do they want to simply have their go at bloodying the world a few more times? Is that it? DO YOU WANT TO REFER TO THE PAST - NOT LEARN A DAMN THING FROM IT - AND THEN BE ALLOWED TO REPEAT THE SAME BARBARIANISM? Get a fuckin’ grip; the enlightened world didn’t get enlightened for extremists to repeat the intellectually retarded atrocities of the past, and then be defended by so-called “moderates” who are even bigger hypocrites for having the face to defend such vile behaviour.

“No one gives a damn about you making such references, you monkeys! What happened, had happened, unfortunately, and it was widely condemned! Why refer to it now? Two wrongs don’t make a right! This doesn’t make what’s happening now, any more acceptable than it already is: Completely unacceptable! Do something about the now - the present! After all that has happened, what are you going to do about what’s happening now (and might happen in the future). Form a practical solution and conclusion for your endlessly half-baked refutes, you pathetic shmucks. From here on, any references to already-condemned, thousand-year-old atrocities, are invalid! Offer solution, and condemn what’s happening now, rather than defend! Give me a reason, not to call you apologists, and actually consider you true moderates!” - Urgent rhetoric.

Yes, I have yet to see proper condemnation for acts against innocent non-Moslem parties, because most of the Islamic-o-political paradigm’s busy, perpetuating this martyr indoctrination of self-righteous indignation for their lovely little conscience/volition-free drones. Pity yourselves - get mad - resort to reactionary tactics; while the suffering of other innocents outside your belief system is completely invalidated. Moderates turn into a complete mush of tears and brain-chowder over the murder of innocent Moslems; rarely is there a congressional protest over the similar murders of non-Moslems; what - one’s innocence is now contingent on your thumping of the Koran? You must belong to this religion to be considered innocent? There’s an example of esoteric perception for the viewing/and flabbergasted audience. Please! Get off your high-horses, and identify your own filthy double-standards; it might just decrease the frustration of your outspoken critics.

You can make a dozen references to the past; you can have your bodies tattooed with such references; your grave stones following suit. None of these evasive/detracting tactics will change or pardon the abysmally inexcusable negligence and persecution of human sanctity and freedom of conscience and speech in this day and age, all in the name of that hideous state-indoctrination known as the Sharia. This should be the new curse word for the millennium - “sharia”. Anything that embodies chauvinistic oppression and minimisation of female rape-victims; death penalty for apostasy; determining what anyone’s religion is, outside their own will/autonomy; death penalty against adultery; using state to control spousal relations; micromanagement--as many have already put it--of every facet of all citizens existence, couldn’t even be considered hell-worthy. You shameless duds make references upon references to past human-errors, while ignoring, and even condoning the aforementioned doctrine, which couldn’t even be considered suitable for Satan’s commode? Please, get back out there, confront your beliefs, reclaim your critical-intelligence--which was robbed from you since birth--and use that to finally develop a dignified, individual conscience as opposed to the pathetic little apologist-drone mentality for a fabricated moral authority that most still hone, out of fear, and psychological impotency.

Religion of peace, my ass! More like peace on archaic terms! “Shut up, and bow down, and nothing will happen to you! We like our maggots without spine; we don‘t want thinking, independent humans with will!” A better way of summing this up: “Our peace, just for us, or else… So nobody moves! No body gets hurt! *BANG BANG*”

“The deal is simple, for every single person on this planet! When something heinous and dehumanising is taking place, no amounts of past-references will help the matter. Wondering and pondering the beyond has nothing to do with this paradigm of mortals; no human can account for these factors to a scientific degree, and therefore, has no right to compromise other human life in the fear and belief of such spiritual hypothesis! Believe in whatever the fuck it is that you must believe in, but keep it to yourself! Stop trying to politicise the concept and earn it credibility beyond its objective state: Hypothetical Belief! Be honest to yourselves, and use your higher-intelligence to deal with what you can deal with! Unfortunately, certain dogmatic indoctrination has declared humanism a sin in the name of a given spiritual hypothesis, resulting in the archetype mentality of militant-drones, who refuse to deviate or tolerate, while the disagreeing moderates within their sanctum, get tricked by their own contaminated subconscious into picking the wrong side like idiots, and then defending these militant monsters! BREAK THIS DAMN CYCLE, YOU FOOLS! BEFORE EVEN THE MODERATE BRACKET ENDS UP GETTING CONSUMED!” - My conclusion.

I realise that a very small minority of these people, are indeed hardworking, progressive-minded individuals! But all that self-redemption is negated when you try to deceive the rest of us into thinking that the contributions made by the moderates should somehow overshadow, or eclipse the fascist extremism that is perpetuated by the barbaric fundamentalists, and pretty much engulfing this world; do I see you people taking proper measures -against- the sharia-touting in UK? Hell no! Bitch, and moan all you want: You moderates are a wimpy minority, period! Everyone else between yourselves and the extremists are just passive-bodies that still sympathise with the extremists, which basically leaves you people as the only deviating minority. Accept this reality, and then take some proper, affirmative action towards rectifying this reality - differentiate yourselves from the fundamentalists - create a moderate evolution in your religious protocols, and last, but not least: Stop defending scum.

Until next time! Stay cool!


Civilisation vs. The Middle Ages: Wafa Sultan, the Arab Martin Luther King

Sunday, August 13, 2006

UK's Islamic community, and their recent pleas for reform! (Pfft!)

Before I proceed, it should be known that I’m starting to despise the BBC website, especially for its fascist-like “Have your say” section. I was basically there, watching an entire population of divided Britons, voicing their thoughts on the Islamic Community’s plea for international policy reform in the UK. You can get the details from the following url:
BBC - Have your say: Is British foreign policy fuelling extremism?

I had some thoughts of my own, but I’d rather voice them fully in this hellhole as opposed to BBC’s utterly useless have your say section, where they’ll keep deleting my comments and rejecting them, despite certain monkeys getting away with comments like “u r da badz pplz!” (Not kidding; I think I saw something like that in this very discussion.)

Now, first off, I’m just relieved that this threat in the UK was averted in good time - well done on the part of the relevant authorities!

Now for the comments and this proposition by the fuzzy Islamic community in the UK (Yeah, right!).

C’mon. Can’t these people find common ground? I refer of course, to the BBC crowd. For a BBC website crowd, there’s a clear cut division in these comments, which is a disturbing omen. Some are bloviating warmongers, who’ve clearly developed concrete views about a very complex conflict that requires flexible analysis as opposed to stringent myopia. Meanwhile, the others are sympathisers with a martyr complex, basically devoted to the rectification of this foreign policy for the greater fuzziness of humankind - or so they believe. Of course, these apologists are the same dumb-asses who often end up defending extremists more often than offering concrete condemnation for the extreme actions; and then they expect to be viewed as different. Now is it just me, or are we missing some solid pearls of middle-ground wisdom? I think we are; therefore, I’ll take a crack at this one.

First off, the Islamic community’s demands are intentionally misconstrued by certain individuals, simply because they wish to justify their outrage at moment, which as justified as it may be, is still no cause for such blatant misinterpretation. What these leaders are saying, asking, pleading, is not for UK to change its laws; they’re not asking for religious indoctrination within Britain (maybe some of them are, but most of the moderates aren’t). They’re simply saying this--I’ll put in captions: “Dudes, these extremists are loco - crazy - nuts - drones with no value for life; let’s try to find a method that isn’t going to provoke them to such great degrees that either they go gung-ho, or this nation becomes bigoted against anything that is remotely linked to Islam or non-white/non-protestant-Christian ethos. We just wanna’ have a chance to live!” Perhaps a bit naïve, but that is the gist of these pleas from the Moslem moderates, I believe.

Seriously, I despise these capricious demons that we view as “Islamic Fundamentalists”, but this is no reason to go out of one’s way, and deceive oneself into poorly reading the Islamic Community’s requests and backing intentions. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. I think moderates are spineless, for the larger part. Consider Pakistan, for an example; many moderates moan about democracy in this country, when the only shred of secular hope for that nation -is- its current regime - pardon the explicit expression, but screw democracy when a bulk of that nation might vote-in another group of Islam-o-fascists. They dub Pakistan a sham democracy, while ignoring the fact that the current regime might be the only thing separating a progressing state from purely archaic indoctrination. Do the moderates get this concept? Not really. They’re too occupied revelling in the ideal of fairness to realise the doom that looms in their democratic destiny. Therefore, it should be known that I am no big fan of the Islamic community’s worm-like notions, and completely childish belief that basic Islam could ever correlate with a progressive, secular world. They ought to consider an evolution of their religious programming, or create solid distinction in faith from their savagely extremist counter-parts. I hate to say it, but at the moment, they still serve the role of hippie apologists for the same, critically-stunted dogma: Same religion.

Having that said, I will also add that blatantly using terrorism as leverage against current foreign policy is nothing more than just the obvious wrong, bordering on forthright blackmail. The extremists execute their atrocities, followed by some very watered-down condemnation from the moderates, followed by twisted justifications, which pretty much defeat the purpose of the given condemnation; despite condemning these extremists, a good few moderates still seem to suffer from a compulsion to play apologists in this mess. Yes, it is fact that the foreign policy is motivating some psychotic terror cells to react; however, such policy is not entirely off, either - these cancerous manifestations against human progress need to be eradicated. At the moment, raving about peace, and relying on the ancient mantra of double-standards, while serving feeble justifications for a very archaic dogma, isn’t really doing much to arrest Islamic Fascism. This anti-progressive disease needs to be dealt with in an affirmative manner, but with a bit of logic rather than one-sided antagonistic tactics that put the common-citizens in greater danger, which is a dire fact, and very much happening.

Hell, during that entire comment-fiasco, a certain Moslem voiced his own thoughts that reinforce my belief that even these so-called moderates unconsciously come off as apologists; refer to the quote for details.

Excerpt from - Have Your Say:
"Islamic brotherhood is about 1/5th of the entire humanity and cannot be eliminited." -
Muhammad Saeed - (BBC - Have your say.)

Right there, people; this putz is acknowledging that extremists and moderates are siblings - one union, perhaps? Doesn't look very nice for the so-called pacifist moderates. I can name a handful of atheists who're forced to carry the "Moslem" title because of the archaic view of Islam on apostasy. Individuals who’re not really part of this brotherhood in spirit, and practice none of its dogmas; but still, individuals who’re trapped inside the demographic category because Islam--shitty popular concept that is has become--doesn’t allow freedom of religion if it entails leaving Islam. Therefore, it should be known that a handful of this 1/5th population, aren’t really relevant to the argument presented by Muhammed Saeed. Of course, the stupidity doesn’t end at this point; we've got a live apologist on our hands!

The same contributor had also stated:
"What well meaning and learned Muslims scholars explain on authority about real Islam,is to be taken seriously." - Muhammad Seed.

Perhaps these "scholars" can attempt justifying the execution of Islamic apostates. Or explain why they've avoided taking any steps towards circumventing such barbarianism. Seriously, Islamic interpretation, and state-sanctioned implementation needs to fuckin’ die!

As for the bottom line; yes, deal with Islam-O-Fascism! But please, do not alienate what remains of the moderate Moslems in-between--spineless as they may seem, to me--they’re an okay bunch, though I’m not really interested in digesting anymore of their hippie-like views of their creed, and of course, sham-peace. As adaptable as these pacifist moderate Moslems may seem; I wouldn’t want them to be determining foreign policy, or any policy, for that matter. Islam-o-fascism, and Islamic theocracies, need to go; this world doesn’t need religious militants, and nations that provide constitutional justification for esoteric religious glory and follow-up militancy - purge the world of this Islamic Fascism, and the theocracies within which it is bred.

The following from the same slew of comments sums it up best:
“Blaming Government is hiding from the reality, simply put, Muslims are confronted with a choice.” - Kamran - (BBC - Have your say.)

Once again, good job on the part of relevant authorities in circumventing this vile, and very recent threat.

So until next time, stay cool, fuckers.


Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Bitter Irony: I defended Fox News' right to exist! WTF!?

“Why the fuck do I get into these things? I guess I enjoy them until the scenario gets messy.”

I recently ended up in this twisted argument--by no intent on my part - big surprise--and an argument it was, with an even deeper twist to follow. It was your average day; me having my average interactions with the average likeminded individuals, bashing the average likeminded notions.

The theme of the day: Fox News - The Bashing, part umpteenth. The twist: Kade leaping to the defence of their rights in a bitter-sweet tactic for the preservation of a certain principle that he holds dear. Yes, I was pushed that fuckin’ far, beyond the abyss that us meagrely neurotic humans like to refer to as, “The Brink!” It fuckin’ sucked, but it was needed, and I found no other choice on the matter. I’ve been known to bash the news channel, myself; but the notion of having the fuckin’ morons blatantly censored or blocked, just didn’t fly for me.

I personally agree with the common critiques about this sham of a news channel, where a handful of shows are explicitly known for promoting a very haunting, and esoterically rightist agenda. Hell, the stiff-fucks at “Faux”, have been known to bring on Ann Coulter onto their shows for the mental-conditioning err, edification of their viewing audience; and that white-neo-militant-Christian-supremacist is the bitchy epitome of evil, fascist, bigoted intolerance in an equally mind-boggling guise of beauty. Civil rights advocate, my fuckin’ ass! This coming from the woman who decries the left for being “god less”; civil-rights advocate? If this Hell-Mistress had her fuckin’ way, all of us “heathens” would be shackled down by our balls and being forced to profess a dying allegiance to the holy spirit, or otherwise, face her wrath, both in this world, and the so-called “here after.”

This example of Ann Coulter was just amongst one of the many painful lacerations of intellectual misery that Faux has induced upon me by virtue of its disgustingly polarised programming. Therefore, my displeasure for this sham-cum-news channel should be fully acknowledged and fathomed by each and every one of your maggots and shrewd fuckers, before I explain as to why I was defending their right to exist (annoying shmucks).

My acquaintance pointed out how such a hate-breeding outlet of the new-age media, should altogether be barred from the face of this planet, because it’s doing nothing more than illicitly sexing up the naïve perception of Americans, while simultaneously demonising entire bulks of generally moderate populations of “other religions” - a folly that some have accused even my arrogant-ass of practicing, and I acknowledge that I tend to slip down that path. And that astoundingly long sentence is only the half of it; because my acquaintance also pointed out how this might become the launch pad for some twisted neo-con militant agenda of the future - another hypothesis that I decided to avoid challenging, or acknowledging for that matter. Though I do know that people like Ann Coulter are a sign of some very nasty elements that exist in the west, at the moment.

Anyway, I had to step up to their defence, for once, and it was fucking annoying, because all this while, I had the mug-shot of Sean Hannity, firmly mounted in front of my mind’s eye - my mental thoughts at that very moment. I don’t think any of you free/independent thinkers could possibly stomach defending Fox News when you picture this twisted spastic at the same time - it just brings out so much hatred. Anyway, my impulses successfully stoked my conviction, thus paralysing my innate inhibition at that point - I continued to defend Fox News.

My defence began with the mere point about how, regardless of their anal nature, Faux/Fox should be allowed to exist as an accessible media outlet. It pained me to make such a declaration, but it had to be said. My acquaintance began to assume that perhaps I was, finally, jumping ship and heading off to a far more darker place. I assured this person that he/she could not be more wrong, and that I wasn’t defending Faux/Fox so much as I was a mere principle that hold dear: Right to exist and profess, regardless of the asininities of the contentions in question.

Believe you me, people; Fox is shit - not THE shit… just plain shit; a piece of year-old, dried-up, bull excrement that has probably fossilised a swarm of house flies within its hardened faecal confines. To me; Faux Noose/Fox News has been nothing more than a guilty, and rage, inducing high that I would consider nothing more than commode grout from a random public toilet in Sudan. Is this, however, a strong enough reason for them to be denied existence as the collective morass/entity that they currently are? Does even a popular opinion warrant such a notion? Such questions raced through my mind as I considered while simultaneously defending.

I personally saw a glaring red flag beyond my critique; I hated them, but I still didn’t feel that they, despite their hate breeding content, deserve to be absconded into the nether regions of the media-oblivion. All of you bastards should know, but not for future reference, that I suffer from a mild degree of obsessive compulsive disorder; I usually have trouble making direct contact with certain things that gross me out, and gutter crud is one of those things. Of course, no sane fucker likes gutter crud, but most can muster the intestinal fortitude to make direct contact when the moment commands. I, on the other hand, lacked such gall when it came to gutter crud - no direct, hand-contact for me, biatch! I thought this to be true, until I watched Hannity literally spew pure right-wing crap on television. I was for once, craving the desire to mix shit-ridden sewage with strong cement, before running my fingers right through the concentrated mire of excretion and cement, and then taking another additional step towards grand-grossness, and sticking the given fingers into Hannity’s mouth, and shutting him up, once and for fuckin-all! Indeed, that is just how bloody motivated I was to see this putz, shut the fuck up, for the greater good of humanity.

Unfortunately, this was still something that the philosophical trace inside me would deem as plain “wrong”. In today’s world, with all the shit that’s going on; acting upon such a domineering desire would leave me with a lot of self-loathe. I do not regret having such a desire, but I don’t believe I need to exercise such a desire into actual actions. Hannity, the cock-sucking twit that he is, should continue to relish his right to abuse and misuse his dialect for the better or the worse; it is his right, especially by his country’s culture and constitution. And why does Sean Hannity get this free pass? Because all of us are entitled to such a free pass; it’s just that most of the sane bracket of humanity use utilise their expressive talents with a bit more class.

To me, dear fuckers, such a disgusting compromise is essential, because I find myself defending the existence of something repugnant, in lieu preserving an even further sacred, and fundamental principle: Free expression. It is just down-right wrong; fucking wrong! The few fascists on Faux/Fox, who desire to spew pure horse shit right out of their mouths as though fitted with an actual horse anus, doesn’t mean that anyone else should get to silence them; not you, not me, not anyone! These fuck-tarts are free to make public asses of themselves, and also free to desecrate their intellectual credibility - their loss! If you don’t like the spewed garbage that projects from their assholes, err, mouths - then spew some rebuttals, right back at these monkeys, and awaken them from their atrociously misleading phantasms! I guess in a twisted way, even trashy debate can exist when one side spews shit in the form of opinion, and the other decides to do the same in return. It’s a trashy debate, but a debate no less; a far more acceptable alternative to curry-smelling shmucks, burning down entire buildings like a bunch of ugly, devolved apes, high on testosterone, simply because someone mocked their religious god-father. I see this as a quintessential value in a degenerating world of spiritual hypocrisy, and utterly unneeded assertion of taboos in light of bigger, less-trivial issues that remain untouched. Let us at least overcome fundamental intolerance by allowing the intolerant-cockscukers to express their intolerance in civil speech as opposed to forcing them into a zone of belligerent action.

Let us exude our true commitment to expression, by biting our own tongues and the insides of our cheeks, while we allow idiots like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, to continue their utter disgrace of all civil progress and social evolution with their archaic opines of zero wisdom, and practically negative empirical value. After all, very seriously, it is utterly useless to silence people; you might as well kill them--also unacceptable, of course--because paralysing their tongues and hearts--black hearts, even--is really no better. It’s really pointless, anyway; stifling free speech will only add pressure to a potentially explosive concoction of pent-up human thoughts, both the virtuous, and the plain asinine.

All the progressive beings need to band together; remain committed towards preserving free-expression without any contaminated regulation. Don’t commit yourselves to paving a disgusting path for an even darker future than the currently developing obscurity that we’re seeing culminate before our very eyes, you critical fuckers! It’s not worth it, because in that obscure nightmare of a future, this right to express and debate, might be our only needed vent and ray of light. We should struggle to preserve this concept, even compromising our own desires in the process, because it will be a darkness beyond any mythical hell, if this regulation of expression eventually turns free-expression into a scorned vice for future generation to fear and loathe without a single dignified rhyme, or reason, for that matter. Seriously, if we kill this, even by shutting up bastards like Sean Hannity and Hell Whores like Ann Coulter, then we effectively immolate ourselves, and our metaphorical souls! We might as well be dead, because by initiating a silence of mere opinion, we’ve taken a step towards becoming biological drones, and that is a miserable a death from how I see things, people.

“I fuckin’ hate fox, but I am not gonna’ slaughter what remains of my tattered soul to deprive them of a right that I value and protect with such pride.” - Closure.

So until next time, which could be a while; stay cool, fuckers.