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

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Heathens Are Coming!

So in my recent voyages into this perpetual-psychosis that is human nature, I have come across some rather amusing gemstones of profound ignorance and ill-fated ideas that are being promoted with assiduous effort for the sole purpose of justifying the fragile perception of a certain few deluded shmucks.


"There's an atheist conspiracy in the works and it is indeed this cult of the atheists that is the mastermind behind what appears to be a genuine New World Order movement." -- The Latest Turd of Nonsense


Oh. Really? Shit. Man. That’s such an eye-opener. I'll take pause so I can laugh, but not because of the sheer irrationality of what is being proposed here, but rather, because I am overwhelmed by hysteria. After all, there is nothing funny about the idea of a non-existant group-movement out to topple our theological beliefs. Frightening!

I mean, I can just abandon all credible facts and knowledge of everything Hitchens and Dawkins have pushed for here in the UK regarding the idea of freeing ideologies from one another's control, and removing public-funding of esoteric theological schools, and instead, doubt their motives and life-long efforts as nothing more than a mere ruse. All in light of the cock-eyed assumptions found in this New School of Thought and their latest annexation of complete rubbish that forms the ground work for this ‘atheist conspiracy’.


"HOLY FUCKIN' SHIT! THE HEATHENS ARE COMING! FUCK KNOWS WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHY THEY ALL INDIVIDUALLY CHOSE TO REJECT GOD, BUT THEY’VE BINDED TOGETHER IN THE NAME OF. . . I DON’T FUCKING KNOW, BUT THEY’VE BINDED TOGETHER AND IT MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD! THEY'RE OUT TO KILL GOD! THEY'RE KILLING GOD!" -- Venting/Belching/Whatever


You know what we call this kind of confrontation of ideas? That’s right: a no-win situation. It is nothing more than sprinkled bullshit on top of more bullshit, making up for our yearly-quota/recommended allowance of bullshit! Why do I call bullshit on this? Well, because we don’t even have a very accurate statistical count of ‘atheists’--three-percent at best--let alone those that have clandestine agendas to spearhead a proper ideological movement. All we’ve really got is a statistically acknowledged number of people ‘who don’t practice any religion’, and a small figure at that, which can just as well mean any spiritual agnostic looking to find God.

These douche-bag 'theorists' are trying to support a conspiracy theory that is contingent on a unified group-ideology, and their centrepiece for this theory is a non-cohesive group of unrelated, individualistic people who we only know to share one ‘negative claim’ that can’t even be officially documented on any census to date. This is a recipe for failure and a perpetuation of this bovine-philosophical purgatory in which most frail-minded, agenda-driven theologians find themselves. Like it wasn't already enough that their personal beliefs in the supernatural had to be preached as logic and fact to dictate real-world policies; now the very faith-element that some of these posing believers hold pride in, must be protected from the hostile influence of a fickle-thinking that barely makes up for any portion of the global populace. What a fucking joke! And talk about being insecure. Any dignified individual with a creed or genuine faith would laugh at such a theory, as would any non-believers, because both sides share a stable and sane outlook -- a reality where a meager, unrelated few could never have any reason or potential to oppress a relatively ginormous margin of people with institutionally-protected beliefs.

Seriously, there’s a time and place for one to don the tin-foil hat, and this ain’t one of those moments or subjects. When people are making up shit, at least they shouldn't lose their absolute grip over reality; something as subjective, individualistic, and potentially nihilistic or humanistic as atheism cannot support such an agenda because it lacks any kind of cohesive structure or grounds for collectivism. Assuming that there’s an 'Atheist Conspiracy TM' is tantamount to assuming and professing one’s own idiocy of epic proportions on a grand podium for the entire world to ridicule and mock.

Granted, many of us have had our moments where we've jumped the gun, or have been eager to buy into a convenient 'alternative explanation' to a reality that we cannot accept at face-value. However, it is always better to carefully select and pick supporting ideas and theories; to know what one's talking about as opposed to randomly spewing every fallacious-musing heard on the web like some broken stereo. Hell, if people are so bent on intentionally promoting absolute nonsense, at least they can be a bit more tactful with the deceptive use of ideas and selective facts. Even when it comes to propaganda driven by lies, there's a very blunt and obtuce margin that separates unique fabrications engineered through ingenuity from the plain old mediocre, random, nonsensical horseshit that one could find rotting inside any dead horse's ass.

Atheist conspiracy? Fuckin' hell! Please, tell me where these all-powerful non-believers/guys are so I can sign up for the cause. Heh. More on this at a later point in time.

Take it easy, fuckers.

Later,
Kade

Friday, October 15, 2010

A Long Overdue Homage

In this life of shenanigans and vulgar theatrics, all of which I appreciate and revel within, there’s a key note of timing that is always missing. This disrupts and detracts from the charm of such antics and with such glorified gimmicks execution is a cornerstone to perfection. Without it, you simply have a pointless exhibition devoid of any self-reflection or depth.



This is the kind of keynote that is always overlooked by many people, ranging from the boisterous artists to the pompous political pundits; a curse of having a seismic ego with no barriers or sense of purpose. For example, there’s certainly a very specific time and place for one to be an unyielding, uncompromising, stubborn, belligerent, insidious, hideous, invidious, fuckin’ asshole! You nail this sweet-spot, and you're an epic hero with smashmouth charisma, but if you miss - you're nothing. Absolutely nothing! And the sad reality is that most of us don’t know our place well enough to get that timing right.


So here’s a fuckin’ toast to the ignorant, oblivious Rockstar! Let us bow to this idol -- the on-stage God Complex and ‘never say die’ attitude. The endless supply of promiscuous groupies and the multitude of STDs. Let us also honour the notorious drug addictions--because nothing says 'bad ass' like livin' life ont he edge--and the countless fuckin’ puncture wounds that overshadow the plethora of tattoos! All hail the art of plain fuckin’ indulgence and ignorant trains of thought on a nauseatingly excessive scale. The kind of downward spiral that would have even the least humble amongst wishing for a swift and dignant death as a release from this lexicon of shame. Rock on, you arrogant bastard; won’t be long before you end up drowned in a pool of your own vomit, bile and blood.



Here’s another fuckin’ toast to the Rhetorical Rodents that lurk in the sewage of the political sphere – our beloved pundits. A grand toast I make to acknowledge these cunts for grossly spinning and distorting the context of truth to serve their every foul whim; even if it incurs the wrath and judgement of the entire global conscience over the appalling nature of their tactics. Again, it won’t be long before your filthy skeletons break free of the closet -- from the sex-scandals to the blatant expositions of hypocrisy that can be poetically juxtaposed against your own shallow judgement of others. The concept of Poetic Justice cannot not be more majestic with your downfall as you're picked apart by the vulture-mentality of your own kinship.



At the end of it, I would not be surprised if most pundits would wish that they had gone the way of the Rockstars, but given how their kind are known to prostitute their own dignity on a daily basis, it also wouldn’t surprise most of us if they continue to walk through life un-phased and unscathed – simply loathed and scorned for being the perfect representation of subhuman gunk.




Does this have a point? Are there hints of self-reflection in this sarcastic diatribe? Did something happen recently that provoked this outburst? Fuck no! This is just a general observation and acceptance of the status quo by the supposed ‘rebels’ that actually help maintain this mind-numbing stasis that we call the mundane system. Who wouldn't want to honour these goodfornothings and their futile melodrama? They're the perfect personification of reality.



Take it easy, fuckers.



Later,

Kade

Sunday, September 19, 2010

The Fire Burns

I was hoping to post something about 9/11, since it was a very powerful and dark event in our history. One, that for a variety of reasons, has entirely changed our world and the kind of world where we now bring our children; thought explaining politics was hard before, but now it is another twisted ball game.

Anyway, I will make a proper post about this subject next year, marking the ten-year anniversary of the tragic event.

However, all was not quiet as this year's 9/11 had its own share of controversy with Pastor Terry Jones' ambitions of political grandeur. Obviously, most of us din't know of this lunatic up until his recent exposure, courtesy of the media. He was really a nobody-pastor with a small following in Gainsville, Florida. All this changed, however, upon his recent conception -- 'Burn a Koran Day', which has sent ripples of outrage across the political-world when he announced that he would burn a Koran on the 11th of September, 2010, and that he would like others to join in this act as a symbol of protest against the fanatic branch of Islam. The media, being the media, fed off this story like a coke-addict in withdrawal, snorting their way through through an entire Spring Break's worth of stash.

Obviously, the news spread like wildfire into our favourite and reactionary parts of the world such as Asia and the Middle East, sparking great protests from all corners including threats of violence and demonstrations that were indeed threatening and violent in their outcomes. All this before the official day, so we were all still waiting for the proverbial 'big bang' to occur when suddenly, news surfaced that the pastor abandoned his plans after he was allowed to meet with the Imam and discuss the matter of the Ground Zero Mosque.


“Great, interfaith dialogue. . . How fuckin' productive.” - Immediate Thoughts


I've been lurking on the internet and found a few intelligent points of discussion on a few forums. One individual very poignantly pointed out that this is a result of the media-frenzy and its desire to generate news—generate a product to sell—that seeks to exploit more fire in the debate between those that believe Islam is the cause of 9/11, and those that believe Islam is being demonised by that very rhetoric and should instead, be allowed to participate through interfaith dialogue that would allow the promotion of Islam as a harmonious creed. In the process, the very entity that is the media has also split between the two sides of this debate in order to specialise in their flaming rhetoric and tactics to keep this matter as alive and thriving as possible.


“Nothing like creating more controversy, and thus, creating more cash!” – Taking a note from Wrestling Promoter, Eric Bischoff



“It is just one big pissing contest!” - A Certain Young Man's Earthly Wisdom


Nevertheless, I have not said anything, or drawn light to any facts that aren't already well-known amongst the intellectual audience. It is almost like a patterned series of events that many of us can forecast and predict. However, this time, there's even intelligent folk who are a bit stumped and thus, susceptible to the kind of arguments that would compromise their rational outlook and ability to reason, and it is this development that I find very interesting in all the disturbing ways.

You see, here's what I find interesting in this mess.

Naturally, there are certain people who think there's a media-conspiracy that is promoting Moslems as tolerant and what not else; a sordid compaign that presents false-information that is contrary to what these very people consider 'the truth'.

Then there's the opposing brand of people who think there's a media-conspiracy that is promoting a stigma against Moslems by using selective facts and focus on only religious extremism; painting the entire religious following with the same coat of 'fanatic branding' paint.

To exacerbate matters even further with deluded-indignation, both parties are making martyrs out of themselves under the belief that their respective 'fight for truth' is marginalised in light of the bigger picture; that they are the minority/underdogs in an uphill batttle and have the greater struggle at hand since evil has a way of spreading.


“Why don't they both just kills themselves and leave the rest of us be?” – The Middle Ground


Then there is the sane world that stands in the middle and sees how both sides walk around like idiots wearing their blinders as they embark upon the steep slope of narrow-minded bigotry. These people are capable of identifying that not all people are the same, not even amongst the sub-sect of moderate/non-fanatic Moslems, as some are modestly religious while others are only 'Moslem' by title but practice or believe little in any concept of faith - I'd call 'em agnostics with a religious title at best. That's right, a child born to Moslem parents is automatically deemed 'Moslem' on our statistics and within culture, even if he/she goes on to have sodomy at an orgy with ten gay partners while eating pork, drinking alcohol and proclaiming, "What the fuck is 'God'?!"


“I question the ratio of this middle-ground to those that are now acutely divided.” - Prime Concern


Unfortunately, such awareness is all but absent in the world of political bloviation as the media and the public love to feed on clear-cut, divided arguments. This only supports the theory that humans—despite exuding great declarations of individualism—actually have an inherent disposition to be pigeon-holed; probably does provide a clearer, securer position in matters rather than stress on greater responsibility and critical-thinking. However, small digressions aside; people are divided, and like being divided over such matters.

I can't be certain, but maybe it is our primal instinct to find meaning in conflict by having sides who have distinct roles and a clear-sight of who is their 'enemy'. There is no doubt that such a recipe makes for a good blood-bath/an acrimonious encounter, and while even I get my amusement out of such conflict, I do hate the greater ramifications this has on the insights of us as a viewing audience. Slowly, even we become consumed by the irrational-thinking; polarised like a bunch of rabid apes. We become engrossed in a brand of malicious ignorance where we condemn others, where we have stringent unreasonable beliefs; where facts are not used to form the correct conclusion, but rather, misinterpreted to support the aforementioned irrational beliefs.


“I hate that one type of ignorance that is used to intentionally promote myopic agendas. The kind of ignorance that is deceitfully concealed under a mask of feigned intellect and quasi-rationality.” - Final Thoughts


Naturally, this whole situation did spiral out of control, even if Terry Jones gave up on the idea of burning the Koran. I don't care what changed his mind; could've been his imaginary friend called 'God', or could've been clandestine fear and threats. Unfortunately, the media frenzy and blood-thirsty masses still got their appetites sated as many Christian institutions in Asia were targeted and desecrated, even though the Koran wasn't burnt. In all sense of reason, burning a mere book—a symbol--cannot compare to burning an entire place of worship or refuge to the fucking ground. Indeed a double-standard has been exposed when it comes to religious tolerance. I wonder what Pakistan's Zamir Akram has to say about this situation, because I am sure some of us would have a good laugh at how that shmuck would convolute fact and logic to support the agenda of his overlords. Bad jokes, aside, this matter has exposed that double-standard in religious respect, along with the ever so sensitive nature of religious sentimentality when it comes to the psyche of the Islam'o'fanatic mindset; they really do wish to believe that their religious legislations are exceptional to the point of unanimous, worldwide servitude. What's worse, this will only fuel the right-wing fire in the developed world and further the negative stereotype of Moslems.

The fire of vengeance continues to burn, but it isn't incinerating mild symbols of dogma, but rather, the very decency of human volition and rights.

In closing, I would like to share a video where 'The Amazing Atheist' goes on to 'Burn everyone's Koran', thus, burning the Bible, the Koran, and Richard Dawkin's, 'The God Delusion'. Now I do have my biases and beliefs as well, but if there's one opportune moment where I would consider burning 'The God Delusion' then this would be that very ideal opportunity. It's just a fuckin' book, and to be quite honest, the essence of the gesture far exceed the preachings in any written-dogma or supposed 'word of God'.


Good for him... well done.

Monday, August 09, 2010

Resolutions or Dissolutions?



Word of Caution: The following post is exorbitantly long, but with such extenuating circumstances, one must truly beat out every single word from the thesis like a blacksmith from the days of old. This post will be very long, and a hellacious read; I advise reading the entry in parts, but keeping close track of the points discussed.


"Living in a world that harps on about human rights, I am sickened by pundits who actually lack any real concept of human rights, and often rob us of many such rights in their personal agendas where they seek to mould society into their narrow world-view. Sure, they promote their selfishness under the vague flag of equality and freedom, but what about the fact that in lieu of their goals, they stole my fuckin' human rights? I believe there is an obvious line being crossed, when the rights of one special group begin to encroach upon the very breathing space of others." - A Reoccurring Thought


I would like to address all this bullshit-banter over the 'Dafamation of Religions' resolution—an international Blasphemy Law—passed on by our ever so hypocritical and ultimately bureaucratic dead-beats at the United Nobodies. Oh wait, I heard that they prefer to be called 'The United Nations'. I don't care if they like to be called 'The Saviours of the Hebrews' or just 'Beavis and Butthead Incorporated'. All that matters is that they are bloody annoying, and the following shall explain why they are judged as such.

Here's a link for your knowledge:


“Read up, and weep if you must. . . I won't judge in this case because it is that bloody asinine.” - The Opening


Anyway, in the many decades that have passed since its meaningless inception, the UN has done very little to actually quell matters and step up with proper intervention where the situation would demand such recourse. It appears that, despite being founded over the concept of absolute human rights, freedom, and global unity, the United Nations seems to be the epitome of empty gestures, and a great source of annoyance.

For example: They cannot step up to the plate and resolve real conflicts. What they can—and often do—is pass some of the most bizarre and atrocious types of resolutions that only stir-up more problems.

Speaking of bad resolutions. . . My latest issue, obviously: Dafamation of Religions. If it isn't already obvious, individuals like myself and other affirmative atheists from Northern Europe seem to be the key target and scope of this Blasphemy Law. They want people like us to shut the hell up, and through this resolution, they can force us to exercise respect and acknowledgement towards any given ideology, even those that are dangerous and maniacal. In essence, we are forcefully obligated to bow down while our personal views and rights are absconded. So much for the UN's supposed goals to protect our human rights, because it seems like mine were just plundered by this very institution's ruling.


“But. . . But. . . Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN said that this isn't against free speech so much as degree and genre of free speech. . . The kind that might incite violence.” - Common Argument


This is exactly where the hypocrisy begins before stumbling mouth-open onto the definitive sword in a moment of swift death. This isn't meant to circumvent free-speech, but we are being told that it is only meant to limit the free speech?! What crock of shit do these manipulative politicians at the UN seem to be serving on our plates these days?! If it is limited to such significant lengths, then it is NOT free speech; end of fuckin' story. No, this isn't a technical or semantic matter, it is a factual matter.

Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan—a backward and plagued Islamic Republic—to the UN, is just another fine example of a suit with a clandestine political agenda that is so nauseatingly concealed behind a barrage of muddled and ultimately obfuscating rhetoric. However, it doesn't take anything more than even two-petty-cents worth of common sense to simplify the horrendous logic. He is trying to assert upon all of us that freedom of speech is fine but we should limit this freedom to avoid offending a large populace of this planet, but he neglects to mention that the latter part of his supposed solution automatically defeats the concept of free speech as it significantly contrives and alters the very basic tenants of the idea. Clearly, people like him will determine what is and is not appropriate, and with censorship so putrid and high in their own 'religious states', it is only obvious that now they wish to impose the same officious constraints upon the rest of us in the supposed 'free world'.


“Don't these cunts from Pakistan have real problems pertaining to religious respect, freedoms, and destitution? Shouldn't they be more occupied with dealing with the blatant violation of human rights in their own bloody backyard before they attempt to preach anything to the rest of us? What gives them face or fuckin' grounds to go about meddling in the rest of the developed world's affairs?” - Immediate Thoughts


Before I go further into the matter, I must address this Pakistan issue in more detail. I have looked into this resolution and it is clear that this Zamir Akram guy is merely feigning interest in global equality as a face-value gesture while truly furthering the esoteric goals of his country—an ISLAMIC THEOCRACY—and its fat-cat leaders, most of whom, along with their military counterparts, have a long-standing relationship with the tribal religious zealots who have a tunnel-vision to revert the entire planet back to ways of ancient Islamic Arabia. As I look further into the papers and the history books, I can't find one damn decent thing to have come out of this country called Pakistan, but there's certainly rivers of tarnished blood and tears, along with equally shameless politics promoted by sell-outs and reactionary thinkers.

Of course, many great individualistic people can be found with ties to this diseased religious republic, but that's nothing phenomenal as there are many more individuals of such calibre from all walks of life and land. Nevertheless, the politics and policies that define Pakistan make it nothing more than a cheap, dodgy state that loves to serve only its elite rulers, and feed off of handouts; doesn't matter whether the handouts come from terrorism or some American plot to deal with said terrorism. . . maybe even both. There are no long-term considerations, or any efforts invested in enlightening the generally destitute and ignorant population of this despotic country, who are often infused with backward religious thinking and a hatred for foreign cultures. What is worse: Pakistan produces some of the vilest breed of terrorists, which is the ultimate result of this country's pivotal involvement in America's communist-phobia-driven cold war against Russia in the 70s and 80s when they syphoned arms into Afghanistan through Pakistan, and also used the culture and political climate to create their 'quick fix' solution by indoctrinating Islamic-extremists so that they have a nasty pack of armed-animals ready to drive the Communists out of the land. And it worked! Unfortunately, this was only the prelude of worse things to come as we now had Pakistan – the perfect epitome of a failed state turning firstly into an Islamic State, and then deteriorating further into a heavily armed flunky terrorist state that threatens much of the evolved and progressive free world.

The question to really ask: What other good can come out of this country? Of the few educated and intellectual moderates, only individuals like Zamir Akram can rise to fame where they use aforementioned intellect to garner such hideous clout within the UN hierarchy. Why don't people like him deal with the basic problems in their own countries rather than waste our time imposing change upon the rest of us in order to accommodate the nuances of their failed state, religion, and global ideology. I find suits like him even more dangerous than fundamentalists sometimes, because they come across as the flexible and benevolent minds who eventually push for thoughtless, cock-eyed resolutions that ultimately protect and excuse the barbarianisms that take place in backward Islamic states such as Pakistan and Iran – terrorism and violence against freedom of choice included.

I am done ranting about that foul country. . .


In his push for this resolution, Zamir Akram's press office often paraphrased the same recycled deception over and over again. For example, he says that denigration of religions has always lead to persecutions and war. To back this horribly distorted view, the gentlemen cites the holocaust. Spins just do not get more political and frivolous than this little half-assed argument. And to think these days, after the Neo-Nazis, it is mostly the backward conservative Islamic states that deny the holocaust and actually programme their youths into having an inherent, religious hatred for the Jews. There – religion being used to further more anti-Semitic tendencies.

Reality remains that wars and massive death tolls have always been incurred at the hands of religion and blind-control ideologies since the dawn of civilisation, and this isn't a hypothesis, because it is a bona fide fact. Also, let us not get confused here; all politics and ideologies are nothing more than deviating manifestations of religion and vice versa. Religion in itself is a political and organisational concept, so let us not confuse this topic any more more than it already has been fucked up at the hands of the UN and its star shmucks like Zamir Akram. Even the citation of Nazi-genocide more than validates this historical fact, because the Nazi *IDEOLOGY* was a very indoctrinated, irrational, myopic movement of hate purged of all freedom of conscience, thought, and speech; a hate thesis forged from the state of sheer ignorance, destitution, and desperation. As far as the rational world is concerned, all institutional 'isms' are responsible for war and death; religion and politics being a primary source.


This dreadful resolution also calls for equal respect of all religions without ridiculing their members or following.

Another very misleading and ultimately sugar-coated lump of toxic shit falling into our drinks. The moment you actually delve into the deeper meaning behind that concept, it becomes obvious that we are no longer allowed to make any kind of critical or negative comments against these recognised ideologies. This is really just designed to protect a certain quadrant of the human race and its faith-followings while everyone else outside of that domain – atheists; existentialists; agnostics; etc., are non-entities worthy of no acknowledgement.

"Protect the backward instituions, and condemn the opposing individuals to silence." - Sad Truth

That's right, under such a mandate, us non-believing 'heathens' don't even have a recognition or equal right of protection. We are being forced to acknowledge and respect different beliefs, regardless of how credible or down-right ridiculous they might be in essence. Never mind our own personal beliefs, which might revolve around the idea of denouncing organised religion and dated thinking.

It should also be noted that this 'resolution' doesn't actually protect other religions, either. I doubt they will use this ordinance to get Islamic states to straighten up their act and treat their minorities, especially Christians, any better than they already are – second-class citizens with no real means of rise in society. I also highly doubt that they will use this resolution to get the Afghan-administration to rebuild the Buddhist temples, or prevent Iran from stoning women, homosexuals, or Moslems who decide to convert to another faith.

This whole fiasco is a blatant robbery of free speech to primarily protect the frail egos of extremist Moslems, because freedom of religion is about people being free to believe without imposing their beliefs and faith-sensitivities on others; religion is not an authority here, and neither is it a protected institution. To simplify the matter: You are free to have your religion. I respect your right to hone whatever religion you chose, but that doesn't mean I am obligated to respect the actual religion. I don't have to respect your religion, but as a sane, civilised and free thinking mind, you should be able to tolerate my dissent against your belief-system. It isn't like my lack of respect for a religion is depriving its followers of the chance to be any more or less religious. Unfortunately, this move by the UN purges us of this progressive field of thinking and no amount of spins and twists in wordplay can change these factual anomalies. So, the answer is a resounding “Hell no!” to Mr. Akram's dodgy defence of this repugnant concept. This resolution does indeed force us – oblige us – to acknowledge and respect religion against our free thinking and free will.


“The greater ills of this resolution are quite openly understood, accepted and respected by all sane and truly enlightened thinkers from all religious groups, Islam included. . . It ain't just the agnostic and secular thinkers who seem to be upset by this move.” - Holistic Perspective


This is a serious matter indeed: Not only is free speech absolutely out, but these people are also looking to usurp freedom of conscience, which also happens to be a hallmark of fundamentalist Islam. Again, we can see a religious point-of-view and protocol being imposed on those who should ideally be free to not believe or follow such religious thinking. The freedom of belief—which should take even greater precedence over freedom of religion—is now being sacrificed for the dodgy agendas of these suits pushing for their vile protection of esoteric institutions.

There's also the factor of hate-speech and with it, the kind of splintering rhetoric that might create stigma against Moslems and further their 'typecast' as terrorists.

Well, this is the biggest indicator of false-flag tactics in this resolution. Why do I call it false? Well it is pretty obvious to anyone living in civilised parts of this world that we have a plethora of laws and social ordinances that already keep us in good check and prevent us from ever demonstrating blatant and or otherwise inflammatory hate-speech against any individual, or any ideology. I am quite certain fellow Brits and even Yanks alike can attest to this fact.

Interestingly enough, the most recent theatrics of hate-speech, down to death-threats demanding the beheading of certain 'cartoonists' and what not else, actually took place in many parts of the world—UK included—and were done so by the Islamic-fundamentalists after the publishing of that fucked-up Mohammed Cartoon. Ironic? Certainly, but hardly amusing. It seems that when it comes to hate-speech, extremely conservative Moslems seem to be at the forefront of the field right next to Neo-Nazis and other racist factions. Even more ironic is the fact that with this Dafamation of Religions resolution, we are being officially silenced from saying anything even remotely offensive about these very Moslems who are always up in arms and eager to assault us for not respecting or accepting their views. This takes us to the last and most poignant cog in Mr. Zameer Akram's deceptive little backing for this resolution: To prevent the incitement of religious extremism.

This, I believe is the real issue at hand, because individuals—moderate Moslems mostly—are starting to show their real colours as apologists for the greater ills that are infused within the ethos of their religion. They wish to defend and protect the fundamentalist archetype within their cultures, and since they know that this is a very barbaric group of thinkers, they only find it acceptable to approach this powdered-keg by silencing the rest of the world so that these savage extremists don't lose their tempers.

Here's an idea: Why doesn't Mr. Akram go back to his country, the jaded interests of which he furthers through his present role with the United Nations. He should take a critical look at his own religion – his own culture, and then decide where he truly stands on the matter, rather than hide behind political smoke-screen and propaganda and attempt this half-assed reconciliation between the moderates and the extremists. There isn't one other religious group on this planet that is still so wound up in its archaic customs that it has a sizeable following of fanatics who will joyfully employ tactics of mass destruction to silence anyone who dares to question or ridicule their faith.
"Get off your lazy ass and civilise your own fuckin' people, man!" - Earthly Wisdom

I remember when the Top Gear crew made a mockery of certain things in the US state of Alabama, and they had to high-tail it out of there due to the red-neck backlash from the uneducated Christian wing nuts. However, even that little incident pales in comparison to the globally violent outbursts that erupted over the cartoons of Mohammed, and to defend this clearly unchecked and barbaric mentality is but a crime on behalf of the UN and individuals like Zameer Akram. Really, when you think about it, this resolution is looking to accomplish exactly what terrorists look to do through fear and violence, but only in this case, we're being blatantly robbed of the right to express ourselves by a tactical set of Blasphemy Laws.


“The terrorists want us to bow our heads and shut the fuck up, and these guys are pushing for a resolution that accomplishes just that very goal! I didn't know that the entire world was Saudi Arabia and that the U.N. were their official 'Ombudsman'!” - The Realistic Potential


Honestly, I'd tell this guy and his UN 'Bloc' to go fuck themselves, but there's a serious issue on the table here and fact is that this resolution has been passed with great protest from all respectable corners of society. The entire reasoning--or lackthereof--behind this resolution cannot stand the test of some simple, critical questions. Why not civilise those who cannot tolerate differing views from that of their own on religion? Why not civilise the beasts that need to be civilised instead of silencing the rest of us from upsetting the backward inbred misfits?! These resolutions are imposing a sense of respect upon us when we—as members of a free world—are free to believe, respect, and think as we please, even if that belief entails a complete and utter lack of belief and respect for a sick, fraudulent, barbaric, and ultimately Draconian ideology that should have perished in the desserts of Arabia some fourteen-hundred-years-ago. We should be free to say, “We don't like this idea – it is barbaric and its origins and historic figures seem dubious.”


The problems is simple: The fundamentalists seem to have a group-ego that is as frail and volatile as that of a bratty two-year-old child with a frightening capacity for mass murder. None of us should be forced to accept or tolerate them or their very sensitive, irrational and ultimately subjective concept of faith. Rather than shut the rest of us up, the people who should be protecting us from such threats—UN—should deal with this mentality by purging it or taming it with equally aggressive measures.

Unfortunately, individuals such as Zameer Akram, working for the supposed good cause in the UN, know these facts but continue to push for stranger resolutions that seek to rob us of our free thinking and speech. One can rationally assume that such individuals do indeed have ulterior motives, and would rather appease the violent minds amongst their cult rather than man up and distance themselves from such barbarians and tackle them the way they should be tackled. No, instead, we are being told by these fucking pricks in suits that we must overturn over a thousand years of human progress and freedom of expression to accommodate these savage extremists who just can't seem to get their heads out of the dessert sands of 700 AD Arabia.

What a fucking shame! If there isn't already a great example of what a self-contradicting morass the UN has become, then let this 'Defamation of Religions' resolution become that symbolic and dark testament to this institution's real nature – a sham front that furthers only the goals of self-centred esoteric groups.


“What about the greater good in interfaith dialogue! You clearly miss this point, you bigoted bastard.” - Digressing Criticism


I think all of us are more than happy with the idea of interfaith dialogue amongst these different religious groups and factions. I think it only lends further to the deception that the people behind this resolution so casually hide behind the 'interfaith dialogue' virtue; a means to make their idea look good on paper. . . call it a flashy gimmick. You see, no one is denying them a right to believe in what they believe in, even though it is quite outdated and stupid. However, for a better world, we all already know that the more they all get along the better it is for the human race as a collective. Further yet, it is also important that these religious folk learn to accept that all of us don't necessarily hold the same regard and respect for their beliefs and that they cannot continue to confuse our respect for their right to their choice of religion, with obliged respect towards said religion – not the same concepts. To assume otherwise is handing the institution of religion authority over the world, and that is something we started to outgrow as a progressive civilisation many-hundred-years-ago. In the civilised world, we don't get along on a lot of topics and we are often ridiculing one another through speech for having contrary beliefs and views. Fortunately, it is that very ventilation through words and dialogue that prevents bloodshed; we do not kill over such differences, so we either laugh and agree to disagree, or alternatively, we keep distance and mind our own business. Yes, freedom of speech is that bloody beautiful, and that bloody easy – instead of being violent animals, we just say what we feel needs to be said and then we step away.


All these very easy and concrete arguments against this ludicrous resolution are but a case of common sense, and so it is quite obvious that the UN's stance towards Defamation of Religions is not geared towards safeguarding the rights of the civilised and the rational realm. The whole resolution is an oppressive mandate that is a slap in the face of all the basic freedoms that should be universal in this day and age. The whole concept has the makings of an apologist, appeasing mindset, backed by nations that are not truly progressive or democratic, but blatantly theocratic and still dictated by the morality and legal legislations as prescribed by an antiquated belief-system from the dark ages.

Bottom line: Islam is an old religion. In its fundamental form; it is indeed very barbaric and backward – appalling by today's standards. One can easily find all the horrible news pieces on what goes on with rape victims, homosexuals, and apostates in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. . . just to name a few. The moderates in the Islamic-culture have yet to officially distance themselves from the violence and truly re-evaluate and present an updated and modernised concept of their religion. The same moderates now use the UN to deal with this matter, but they don't seek to address the real problem by amending the inexplicably flawed thinking of the fundamentalists or the Islamic-states. Instead, they seek to impose petrification and extreme limitations upon the rest of us, whilst granting religion—especially their religion—all the global protection plausible so that the extremists are appeased and sated. How convenient, and how shamefully dubious. It is only interesting that this unwillingness to tackle with the fundamentalists directly – as what they are – and to silence the rest of us from expressing dissent that might provoke them, only perpetuates the notion of Islamists/Moslems being typecast as terrorists.


“It is really that simple. . . you don't want those Moslems being typecast as terrorists. So you tell the rest of us to shut the fuck up with our opinions and free thought on religions so that the fundamentalists among the Moslems don't get wound up and act upon their basal instincts as terrorists. . . in doing so, you only make it that fuckin' obvious that a significant number of people who follow your religion are indeed, justifiably typecast as terrorists. If you don't like this reality, then change yourselves and stop protecting the fragile ego of your extremists, rather than changing the rest of us and throwing our world back into a Sci-Fi rendition of the fuckin' dark age, you fuckin' fascist pricks!” - The Penultimate Truth



“Don't like or respect what I have to say about this subject? That's cool. I won't attack you. . . Neither will I press for a position in a UN office and demand restrictions on your right to free speech and force you to respect and acknowledge my belief-system. . . I'd rather burn alive than be akin to the syphilitic mindset found amongst these fascist bastards who push such resolutions within the UN.” - Closing Piece


Here's to hoping for better times ahead, for all individuals from every single school of thought. . . Times that don't condone imposing silence on individuals to protect the infantile thinking and sensitivities of the wretched, and their tyrannical institutions.

Stay cool, fuckers.

Later,
Kade

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Another day, another march - another stride towards futility.

A demonstration went out of hand in the West Midlands of the UK. Naturally, this evoked interest on my part since I worry like hell about the general mental state of the people on this island.

Readers interested in the few minor, and largely irrelevant details of this story can read/catch up on the following website: http://news.uk.msn.com/articles.aspx?ucpg=2&cp-documentid=154154001#uc2Lst

Note before rant: 'Right-wing protesters clash. . .' Such a headline should most certainly catch a lot of attention and hits. The media-machine, of which I was once a proud part, is indeed becoming one the biggest, most shameless commodity brokers on the planet. It is no longer about honest output of news and views; it is about pitching the right kind of information to the right audience; either appease their ideological principles, or galvanise them and draw heat. Either way - publication wins and generates great buzz. Unfortunately, all this comes at a price as the integrity of honst truthful journalism goes out the window, and with that, any hopes of the reading audiences' chances of escaping their clandestine psychological prisons of ignorance.

"Cheap catchy headlines? Really?! Mainstream media - shame on you!" - The opening.

I have to really dwell on a certain musing before I proceed further. With all the chaos in this world and endless demonstrations for obscure, and ultimately ominious causes that none of us really have a clue of, do people have any idea who and what they are really fighting for and inversely, who and what they are fighting against? It seems like as though people these days are just idle and disgruntled at the same time, and lack any real knowledge of their purpose or direction. I can just picture an ordinary Joe who wakes up in the morning, sick of his fuckin' life and the fuckin' status quo, just like the rest of us bottom-feeders, and thinks, 'Hey, I'm gonna' get out there and join the first protest that's taking place. . . it don't matter if I have the blindest clue what this protest is about - it could even be a protest against me! But damn it! I'm gonna' protest!'

To get back to the crux of the topic, the English Defence League (E.D.L.), who I am very familiar with, were marching a protest against what they consider the 'Islamisation of UK'. As a result, the Anti-Fascit group, Unite Against Fascism (U.A.F.), performed their own counter protest, and of course, matters got a bit out of hands as factions collided with local authorities. This whole topic evoked great interest for a variety of reasons, but I'll try to keep my attack focussed. . . as much as possible.

Now, I could get into a long debate over the true validity and stance of either one of these two groups. I have known people who--for lack of knowledge and choice--pledge allegiance to the E.D.L., and they are some of the most non-racist, reasonably open-minded individuals who only fear the idea of Britain becoming a potential theocratic state, purged of its own culture and identity. Of course, I share common sentiment with these folk who uniwttingly get involved with the E.D.L., but I fall off this nationalistic bandwagon because I don't endorse the greater levels of backward, Pro-Nazi ignorance that seems to shadow the E.D.L.'s legacy in the political arena. Fact is that where ever these guys go, they lead a distinct trail of psychotic, anti-semetic, bigoted bastards in their following. It is a shame indeed, but it is also the truth.

At the same time, I know many individuals who stand against fascism and reactionary racial concepts. These people are also fine in my books, and I have plenty in common with them and their progressive views on a unified and cooperative society. However, I do find it disturbing when some of these progressive folk, almost without recourse and on pure gut-instinct, jump at the chance of condemning 'other fellow citizens' who might be concerned about the social freedoms of Britain being compromised by foreign cultures and elements. Surely, there should be a limit as to how much we can tolerate from the outside, especially when some of those ideas themselves might foster great degrees of intolerance within themselves. Imagine if UK became Saudi Arabia, simply because we wish to be accepting of Saudi Arabian culture; will we also stone rape victims and execute apostates and homosexuals every week?

"Yeah, sure. . . Perhaps I exagerrate on how frequently they execute heathens and what not else, but it is still quite close to the actual, frightening truths of what goes on in Saudi Arabia." - Clearing point.

My contentious approach is by no means an attack on the moslems, but they are not special or above anyone else, and their religion should not become a legal authority in this state – it has no place in scoeity beyond being a part of a person's personal belief by choice. On this principle, I personally, would not want Sharia law in this country. I find religious authority appalling and if people want a theocracy, there are alternatives – Britain is not, and should not be, one of those alternatives.

My present line of thinking doesn't make me a fascist. In fact, it is quite contrary to fascism since using one esoteric religious-ideology to conduct the legal framework of an entire nation is indeed very fascistic by pure design. This is why American-pundits should kick themselves for how horribley they have helped in downgrading Iraq's progressive society. Besides, I also think it is intellectually irresponsible to use fables such as creeds and 'beliefs' in distinct cultural concepts of Gods and Angels to determine stringent laws and dogmas that dictate the ways of the state and its 'subjects'. People should be free to believe in their respective dogmas if they please, but those beliefs—silly or valid—should not be used as prerequisites for legal morality and life of all humans. Faith by it self it too fickle a gamble to actually invest forth the entire future and legal institution of a nation. Besides, all of us can't be forced to bow to laws that literally demand us to acknowledge and abide by concepts (Gods, Fairies, Angels, Demons) that all of us in the free world should be free to accept or reject.

Therefore, the only pragmatic recourse for those that do want to prevent the 'Islamisation of UK', is to honestly and gracefully, step the fuck back from the fascist flags. For these people, who fear their freedoms being compromised, joining another opposing and equally dogmatic controlling movement is but taking on the other side of the same fuckin' double-sided coin. It is wiser to use the true concepts of freedom and enterprise in both choice, speech, and conscience, to assert that England should remain above everything else, a country free of any religious institution or authority. Church of England doesn't count in the same capacity as it is more of a cultural and political linchpin than a religious authority; last time I checked, they don't demand of me to acknowledge a God, or force my children to study and abide by their theological doctrine.

"Sure, there's the whole thing about the monarch being chosen by God and all that, but most of us laugh at this notion and we don't get penalised in any way shape or form for exercising such liberty." - Just clarifying . . . again.

As for those that don't want fascism, I think this entire post makes an underlying point. How on Earth can these people who supposedly unite against fascism, further their cause by insisting that religiously indoctrinated legislation be imposed upon the people of this nation? This is a very simple philosophical paradox that really brings into question the intellect of these so-called 'anti-fascists'. Say if this was a true stringent Islamic state like Saudi Arabia; everything, down to basic protests for human rights would be censored to the extreme, and dismembered heads would be rolling in the town centre on a regular basis.

When it comes to true, murderously dangerous brands of fascism, I am all for being equally fascistic against such causes and to purge them from existence, since fascism can only be truly curtailed by an equally reverse rendition of fascism that would only be used to exclusively target a specifically dangerous brand of thinking and culture.

“Call it killing a killer mentality... One must resort to murdering a movement that promotes murder, in order to end the fostering evils of that movement.” - My take . . . not a perfect one, but the only viable option at this time.

However, protesting against, and demanding the removal of speech from a bunch of guys who are—in a nut shell—simply asking not to be forced under religious law, is very counterproductive and quite pro-fascist from certain points of view as already mentioned.

Of course, this is all common sense, and that kind of thinking has no place in public debate these days, by and large thanks to the provocative, market/money driven media headlines and articles that are better geared towards pushing peoples' buttons than touching on real facts.

The moment news of this demonstration was released, people were bleeding themselves dry over outcries of how one group or the other was bad, and of course, with this, a great support for the British National (Nazi) Party emerged. Someone reasoned that before we all bow to the B.N.P., we should remember that if Nick Griffin truly had his way, anyone that he considers genetically unfit would automatically lose the right to live.

What a poetic tragedy; to join the fight against theocratic reform of the nation, one must actually pander to the whims of an equally repulsive and foul breed of thinkers who will eventually inbreed themselves out of a grotesque existence.

I will deal with this last segue in a follow-up post, because when it comes to ignorant cunts barking on about 'Racial Superiority', a gargantuan mountain of words come to mind; mostly offensive, vulgar, down-right violent swearing. However, an equal degree of criticisms also emerge, so again, I'll deal with this next time. . . and I'll try to keep it clean.

Take it easy, fuckers.

Later,
Kade

Monday, July 12, 2010

A Rude Awakening. . .

I now awaken from over two years worth of silence and slumber.

I remained silent for a variety of reasons, and now I shall document these reasons and also address some of the recent comments made on this blog. However, before I present my real bone of contention regarding why I was away, I shall use this post to deal with these shoddy digressions made by a couple of nobody hack, anonymous cunts who think they're rooting like a bunch of ignominious whores alongside an equally savage and ravenous audience.

A fact for all the few nobodies who do actually 'read' what I 'write'. This blog hardly gets any visitors, so no, there isn't an audience. If I am the mad-man that I claim to be, then I am a raving lunatic in a massive chasm at the heart of an even greater and devoid oblivion. Now would anyone care to hazard a fuckin' guess and tell me what that makes of the chumps who decide to post insulting comments? Well done! It makes them the muck and mire of the chasm as they're bigger fools for knowingly and willingly trying to make spectacles of themselves in an arena that really is the furthest thing from being an arena.

A powerful word of advice for all the attention-whores of the world; don't hide behind anonymity and theatrics on the Internet's arena. If you really want to make a public spectacle of your shameless, illiterate, uneducated psyche, then sign up for something like Big Brother, American Idol, Survivor, etc.; there's plenty of Reality TV garbage out there to bring about the downfall of an entire civilisation.

I am merely a mad, yet humble jerk having his say. I am not interested in an audience per se; read if you want to read, otherwise, fuck the hell off! What are you doing here? If you think my posts are a waste of time, then you've just fucked yourself twice over by adding more words and time to my contention by combating my words.

“Oh, but doesn't that make me the hypocrite for feeding the ego of these low lives by responding?” - A self-musing.

I can see how this might seem like an act of hypocrisy, and I can also find a thousand reasons why I don't even have to defend or explain such an act. The number one reason being that I am human, and the number two reason being that everybody--especially those representing meta-ideologies and dogmas (religion)--seem to be choking themselves senseless on daily bouts of hypocrisies and self-contradiction. Nevertheless, I shall explain my act and also clarify that this is NOT hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is my blog. Contrary to popular, and stupefying misconceptions, this is not a democratic domain, and neither is it a commercial product being sold to a specific target audience/client. No one is my customer, and I am not obliged to pander to anyone's whims, tastes, or egos. On the other hand, if someone enters my back yard and takes a nice fucking shameless dump in the centre; they can certainly expect my combat boot right up their ass!

An anonymous—surprise, surprise—douche-bag using the screen name 'Ross Johnson' decided to get on here so he could 'diss' me on a couple of my posts. Fair enough, it is already clear and apparent that this insect of a half-man has insecurity issues; he's already hiding behind a pseudonym to make a non-existant, failing point. Clearly, my last statement about my 'born-again' Christian friend, got under this guy's skin. Maybe it was the way in which my speech was delivered, but regardless of the how, I did not insult anyone's creed, even though I can and will most likely do so whenver I feel that the need arises.

Well. . . yes, I am an ANTI-theist, and very proud of my beliefs. I make no excuses for having such thinking, and never did I imply that I have an open mind to religion. However, I do have a very open mind to everyone's right to chose what they wish to believe, regardless of how stupid or agonising I may find that particular belief. As a matter of fact, a good eros of my hatred for organised religion stems from the way religion has been traditionally used to usurp such freedoms. It is fine to be free to believe, so long as you are converting to a certain cause, but once you're a member of that theological cause, you're an apostate worthy of death if you decide to leave said cause. This basic right of choice and thinkin', my friends, is called freedom of conscience, and it is something that is frowned upon heavily, even in this day and age. All one needs to do is look in the right places and find just how suppressed people are when it comes to 'faith matters'. Even America--ashamed to admit--is slowly becoming a prime example. I have mentioned this a thousand-fucking-times, and I'll say it again; there's actual countries where people can be legally executed for changing their religion.

“But... But... Modern Christianity is above that; modern Christianity condones freedom of choice!” - You might argue.

Well of course! Have I ever denied this fact? No! It is one of the reasons why I don't always discourage people from converting to certain safer religions, if I truly believe that they will benefit from the move. However, there are people who convert for the wrong reasons, under the wrong pretences.

Now, 'Ross Johnson', do you care to know—two years down the line—what happened to that 'friend' of mine who converted? Well, he is now under full psychiatric care, because his 'Church' took a good chunk of his money, almost made him abandon his living as a builder and decorator. Pushed him to perform an unneeded exorcism on his nine-year-old son, which left the kid traumatised. Over and above that, the 'Church', made this clinically diagnosed bipolar patient, discontinue his very important medication, which actually caused him to fly off the handle at the most unexpected events. Hell, the guy's brother had to make a visit to the family and create an intervention because his younger/baby brother was high on God, and had become physically threatening to the loved ones that were worried about his condition.

Yes, that is my other issue with religion – false messiahs and do-gooders who seek to serve their own agendas under the false-flag of piety and universal morality. Indeed there are real preachers; humble and reserved servants of what they consider a higher cause. It is irrelevant whether I believe in that cause or power, but it is relevant that these people are sincere and humble in their acts. However, for each of these decent folk, you also have the opportunistic counter-parts looking to use Church, faith, whatever, as a means to generate revenue and control.

What I find baffling is this conundrum. This individual--'Ros Johnson'--is ticked off over what he considers my 'whine against religion'. What a fucking joke! That bothers him? There's bigger, more serious issues in this world to be bothered by than one man's dissent against dogma that has dictated the better parts of human civilisation pre-dating Christ or even the Jeudo-Christian ideologies.

“Ross Johnson, you want outrage? There's the Catholic Church, which is actually acting defensive against the allegations of child abuse. Not because they believe them to be untrue, but because they find them to be negative publicity. Priests do something heinous and wrong, and as a result, the institution actually plays the political card by expressing defensive indignation. If this was any other group of people who even dared to look at a child funny—forget actual sexual abuse—they would be branded a 'vile cult' before being persecuted AND prosecuted to the fullest degree by the law—world wide—down to their last member; known forever as sick twisted paedophiles. Meanwhile, an established religious group not only gets away with worse acts, but also gets to yell at the rest of us for pointing our fingers. You want outrage?! THAT IS FUCKING OUTRAGE! Go piss yourself senseless over that debacle, instead of cringing like a wounded bitch over your own inability to stomach my dislike for your personal beliefs and personal tastes, you fucking fraud! I don't claim to be neutral, but neither do I claim to be inhuman. It is funny that in your half-witted diatribe, you actually brought up priests and child abuse in your spewage, because you could not have picked a more hideous time to sabotage your own moral standing, dumb ass!” - Personal message for Mr. 'R. Johnson'

Regardless of the endless merits and cons that I could point in the direction of religion, or even any human ideology—atheism inlcuded—this blog post must not digress into that territory because that's uncool, and not to mention, I am feeding the sick needs of the ignorant 'Ross Johnson'.

As for the other anonymous who posted a few comments regarding Ross Johnson. I ain't a fan of this dude's words, but in this case, I'll agree. . . Yes, very amusing! I couldn't have put it better myself, but let us get one thing straight—again—this is my blog, and not a public service. You don't get to declare it dead, or alive, or even existing for that matter. I post when I want; I merely chose not to post for a while for a variety of reasons that I will address—by my choosing—properly in a new post.

I find all this interesting because many years ago, another anonymous poster made some disparaging comments against my statements. I think I was ranting against terrorists and how I wanted them to contract testicular leprosy or something. This did not bode well for the socially-conscious anonymous who declared that I am no better than they are before he proceeded to lecture me on the real ills of the internet and the blogsphere. I responded to this comment and made a few points clear, since I wasn't going to just sit there and take criticism for matters, which are unfounded. However, the guy did make one point: The internet is a cesspool, and just swearing cover-to-cover on this medium only sinks one further into this ocean of gunk. I agreed with this, but I found that the point was somewhat defeated since even that poster—as noble as his/her intentions might be—was also hiding behind anonymity.

However, the point's already been made over and over again. The internet is a staging theatre of doom for anonymous cunts spewing nothing short of what can be best described as literary diarrhoea that has no place in the annals of philosophical recognition. Yes, even Winston Churchill came off as a bit funny and charming while being a complete tool, but that took some degree of cunning wit and silver-tongued forte. Churchill was a charmer as a jerk, and it worked nicely for him and his career. On the other hand, this 'Ross Johnson' phenomenon is no different from every other billion posts on the most redundant, streamlined internet forms – useless and a paramount example of wasted time, space, and air. Wasted, baseless indignation!

Also, 'Ross Johnson', you had a slip-up of words there; “bollocks you are”. Indeed, bollocks I am, and bollocks I have! Because that is something you sorely lack, you fucking egocentric disgraceful coward. Fact remains that I don't hide behind a pseudonym/alias when I place myself and my words as an open target for low-life, smearing-punks like you to attempt making a name for themselves. However, if this happens to be your real name, which I find highly unlikely (almost as certainly doubtful as I am of God), it still doesn't change the fact that you're still an egocentric disgrace, but only in this instance, it makes you shameless as well, since you've aptly demonstrated just how little grasp you have over the fundamental principles of reading and comprehension. It is individuals like yourself who make a clean, solid case for pundits in the American-sphere, against the first amendment – The Right to Free Speech.

You want to talk about whining, you little faecal curd? Shut the fuck up for a moment, and then seep in some of the soothing silence that takes over when your nonsensical internal/external monologue is abrogated from the realm of existence. (I'll thank Bill Hicks for that one when I see him rockin' in Hell.)

“You don't like what you read, then no power in this world or beyond (HA! HA! As if!) is stopping you from fucking the hell off into any other dominion of your choosing! But if you react like a reactionary dick to a concept, simply because you utterly fail to comprehend the meaning of words, then do the rest of the human gene-pool a favour by ridding yourself of the internet and purging your own seed.” - Closing comment.

“If indeed I am am the egotistical cunt, and a sick master of his own stage; spewing biased hatred for religion. Then you as the rebellious commentator, are nothing more than the filthy fucking wad of used up gum beneath my boot!” - The finale.

As for the rest of whoever/whatever/nobodies, who read this blog or stumble upon it by sheer accident. Welcome back to my own private hell, which ain't all that bad, actually.

Stay cool, fuckers.

Later,
Kade