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, 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